HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2010-03-12.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY
CHARTER COMMISSION
13th Session
Friday, March, 12, 2010
County Council Chambers
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
CALL TO ORDER:
CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon everyone. Today is March 12, 2010, and the time is
approximately 1:40 p.m. I call this regular meeting of the Hawaii County Charter
Commission to order.
ATTENDANCE:
Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chairman
Ms.
Daphne Honma, Commissioner
Ms.
Casey Jarman, Commissioner
Ms.
Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner
Mr.
Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner
Mr.
Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner
Ms.
Susie Osborne, Commissioner
Mr.
Todd Shumway, Commissioner
Excused: Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chairman
Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner
Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner
Also Present: Ms. Nancy Crawford, Director, Department of Finance
Mr. Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel
Ms. Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Mr. William Brilhante, Deputy Corporation Counsel
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. Valerie Victorine, Clerk Administrative Assistant
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: Next on the agenda is Statements from the Public on items on the
agenda. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that the public testimony is
limited to three minutes per each agenda item. First, we have Ms. Cory Harden.
CORY HARDEN
(At this time, Cory Harden came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MS. HARDEN: Thank you, again, for all your hours. I am speaking on two items. The
first is CA -15; I am supporting having 2% in the land fund. I'll go through a couple of
concerns people have had in response to that. I guess the debate is 1% or 2 %; and I really
support the full 2 %.
One concern is that other counties have lower numbers. But as has been said before, they
have higher property tax revenue; they have less open space left to buy. Another concern
is that once we get the open spaces, there is no money to protect health and safety.
People may go down there and drink and wreck their cars, or whatever. But also, people
have spoken about how we could be more efficient with our county budget, and waste,
and do better on that.
One concern is that we need to save money for services like police and fire and building
roads and so forth; but we should keep in mind that open space prevents demand for such
services because if it's open space, people aren't going to be building in some far out
place and then calling the police or calling for fire in a hard to serve place. Open space
provides natural infrastructure; places to grow food and gather food, intact ecosystems
that prevent costly environmental impacts, watersheds, flood plains, visitor attractions,
recreation and so forth.
Another concern is that people seem to have the view that officials have a better
perspective and wider knowledge to decide how high a priority open space should be in
any given year. They don't want to be locked into 2% every year. But we also know that
on the other hand, sometimes officials are swayed by interests that don't put citizens first.
Basically, this is a democracy. It is supposed to be run by citizens; and there has been
tremendous support for the 2 %.
Another concern is that people don't want fixed costs in the Charter; but the Charter
already has fixed costs. They mandate the County Council, County Clerk, Legislative
Auditor, Data Systems, and all of the County departments. There are already fixed costs
in there; and they even have some numbers like the Council has to meet two times a
month, it has to have nine members, it can only do a motion to reconsider some
ordinances after 24 hours. There are some numbers, and for the 2 %, I think you want the
2% so it will be an effective fund. Otherwise, it won't do what it was intended to do. So
please support that.
2
Second, on CA -12 and CA -16, my computer and I both crashed yesterday, so I didn't
have time to research this real well. Basically, I wish there was some other way for us
petition signers so you don't have to require their residence address, given all the
difficulties we have talked about with that. Basically, you are asking people to do
something they can't always do; and when they can't do it, you take their voice away.
That just isn't right, and I wish we could find some other way. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Next we have Helen Hemmes.
HELEN HEMMES
(At this time, Helen Hemmes came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MS. HEMMES: Good afternoon. Thank you very much Chairman Haitsuka and
members. We really appreciate your volunteering your time to do this. The testimony of
the League of Women Voters is Comm. 245. On February 27, 2010, Sue Dursin, who
provided the written testimony that you see in the proposed Charter amendment and the
revision, isn't here; but she is the author of it. Marian Wilkins is in the Kona office and
she is the expert on the details in that particular language. We really are in support, and
Sue is speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters as well of the proposed
changes and the revision. It clearly outlines the process, and I think that's a benefit to the
public at large as well as to the County officials who need to work to verify that the
people who are signing the petition are indeed registered voters living in the residence
that is on file.
My last sentence says, "We hope that you will approve the proposal as it stands." That is
with the understanding that the language would be changed to "valid votes cast" rather
than "people who voted." So the letter, I believe, is in your packet, and it is Comm. 245.
Please, let's make that change. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Last we have Mr. Walter Moe. He wants to
testify on a non - agenda item. Since we don't have too many testifiers here today, I am
inclined to let him testify. Are there any objections? Mr. Moe.
WALTER MOE
(At this time Mr. Moe came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MR. MOE: Aloha, Mr. Chairman and members. My name is Walter Moe. I am the
President of the Hawaii Conservative Forum for Hawaii, which is a non - profit
organization formed about five months ago. Of course, we are about four or five months
late with this, but we have started a project on the prodding of our members and
supporters to initiate a petition drive. The title of this would be The Consent of the
Governed Project, to change the County Charter and restore sovereignty to every citizen.
Recent quotes from our County Council members in their position as our elected officials
are revealing as to how they view their proper roles, like: "It sometimes takes a law to
change people's behavior." "Sometimes I have to be forced to do things that are right,
and I don't want to." "If need to take charge, to lead the County, to define policy in the
best interest of the people of our island." Our County government, lately, has taken on
three roles; administrative, such as determining how many police to hire, or where roads
should go, how to process garbage, etc. This is an appropriate level of authority and
responsibility for them to play. Telling us what things we can do and cannot do,
restricting our rights more so every year, taking our money in taxes and fees. We, the
people have delegated our elected officials the power to be administrators; but we have
not delegated them the power to restrict our lives and take our money without our
permission.
The Consent of the Government Act will restore forever this authority and sovereignty of
the people of the Big Island. The petition drive is going to start; and as we understand,
we need about 20,000 votes to have this put on as a referendum to be voted on by the
people. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak out of order on your
present agenda items. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Aloha.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have people in Waimea to testify?
MS. HANANO: Yes, we have one person here in Waimea; she is Margaret Wille, and
she is speaking on CA -12 and CA -15.
MARGARET WILLE
(At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MS. WILLE: This is Margaret Wille from Waimea, and I thank you all for your efforts.
I just want to say that I hope as this goes forward, you will help to educate all of us and
everyone in the County and help to understand the importance of the Charter itself as an
umbrella law over our County, with government powers and government responsibilities
and powers retained by the public.
On CA -12, I just want to say that I agree with that, and support the change to substitute
"registered voters," with "valid votes cast." It makes sense, and giving the Clerk
additional time to check the sufficiency of the petition.
Going to CA -15, the land fund; I support the 2% amount, but at the same time I hope that
if there isn't the ability to garner the votes for 2 %, I encourage you to support putting in
the land fund at 1 %. One point I want to make in terms of 2% and the arguments against
it is that I see it as basically an effort to balance the environment versus the economy and
how does one balance those different interests. But I think a more farsighted point of
view is that it really isn't a conflict between environment and economy. The 2 %, the
land funds, are used for purchasing land, purchasing trails, purchasing access; which I see
as the real future of tourism here. This is the one segment of tourism, eco- tourism that is
flourishing where it's promoted; whether it's hiking or biking or outdoor recreation.
So I just want to say that I really think there is more consistency between those objectives
and I would love it if you had the ability to go for the 2 %. Otherwise, I do support the
1 %. Whereas .05% was sort of a slap in the face of the electorate, at least 1% is
M
sufficient to provide some leverage to provide some leverage needed for seeking
matching funds and private and public grants. To have that consistency, if you have it in
the Charter, you will be able to seek those funds. Without it being in the Charter, there is
no ability for any outside third party to believe; it may not be there next month.
Lastly, I just want to say how important it is, a public initiative, something that is geared
towards the future of this island to have in the Charter, and I hope you will support it.
Thank you, very much.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have anybody else in Waimea?
MS. HANANO: No, that is all for today.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Do we have someone in Kona to testify?
MR. HIRT: Good afternoon. Yes, we have three testifiers here today. Our first testifier
is Marian Wilkins to speak in support of CA -15 and CA -16, representing herself.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you.
MARIAN WILKINS
(At this time Marian Wilkins, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MS. WILKINS: Good afternoon Chairman and members of the Commission. As Helen
Hemmes said, who testified for the League of Women Voters, from the Hilo office, I am
here just in case someone would like to ask any questions; and I hope that I can answer
them. That would be CA -16. We hope that you will pass that. We have worked on the
initiative and referendum part for over a year to get the wording right; and we think that
the wording we have in here is appropriate for a petition for the charter revision also.
I do want to add, on my own, that I support the 2% land fund. I hope that we can get that
in there. It looks as though the Kona coast will be losing the state conservation land of
`O'oma very soon; it is already in private hands. We do need the lands set aside for
posterity. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much.
MR. HIRT: Our next testifier in Kona today is Ben Dysart. He is here to speak in
support of the 2% land fund and he represents himself.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon.
BEN DYSART
(At this time Ben Dysart, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MR. DYSART: Good afternoon Commissioners, and thank you for allowing my
testimony today. I am going to read from a letter that I have not yet completed to be sent
to your commission. I previously sent you a letter addressing my concerns regarding the
2% Land Fund. I do not need to repeat myself but I would urge you to please re -read my
letter of February 6, 2010. I am forwarding it to you again today.
On a new note, I have several concerns not addressed in the letter. They are: The
administration is on record as adamantly refusing to "have their hands tied by special
funds." I interpret this to mean that the administration intends to continue collecting tax
money from the people but will continue to ignore the voting public. A great many
letters to the editor of West Hawaii Today address the taxpayer's dissatisfaction with the
way our money is spent by the administration. Only the 2006 2% Land Fund on the
ballot was significant to them; that is where their hands were tied, is their claim, and in
lieu of outright destroying the fund - -I think they can't legally do that - -the administration
has cancelled all of the mandated contributions to the fund; essentially untying their
hands. I will be suitably surprised if the original 2% land fund ever recovers.
I appreciate Commissioner Scott Unger's amendment; it signifies agreement with the
people's desire for an effective land fund. It seems that a spirit of compromise is reflected
in the change of the amount of the land fund from 2% to 1 %. I urge you to consider
restoring the amount to 2 %. The total dollar amount of 1% is much smaller than the total
dollar amount mandated on the other islands. At the same time, the Big Island is in a
different position, as most of the desirable land must be purchased from private owners.
The other islands are more developed and their open space land is predominantly
government land.
Please ignore arguments that address "park maintenance costs" and similar "additional
costs." The point of the 2% Land Fund is to purchase appropriate land to preserve it from
development, not to add to the park maintenance costs.
The administration's budget considerations were the excuse for stopping the
contributions to the fund. This does not hold water; $14 million of the budget - -370 jobs
that the administration has no intention of filling - -is patently padding to justify the
"untying of the administration's hands" by killing the land fund.
Finally, now is the time to buy the land, when the prices are low. This is at odds with the
administration's decision to stop contributing to the fund's purchasing power when it
would have been most effective. Thank you; that concludes my letter which is not yet in
your hands. Like someone said earlier, my PC died about the same time that I got this
done, so my letter will come to you after this meeting is over. I understand this is the
second reading and there may be a third reading to come.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Dysart.
MR. HIRT: Our final testifier in Kona is Debbie Hecht to speak on CA -15 and CA -16
and she represents the Save Our Lands Citizens Committee.
R
DEBBIE HECHT
(At this time Debbie Hecht came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.)
MS. HECHT: Aloha Commissioners. My name is Debbie Hecht. I worked with Sue
Dursin and Marian Wilkins for a year and a half on initiative and referendum; that was
approved by voters in 2008. The amendment you have before you, CA -16, uses that
language and adapts it to amending the Charter, so we all ask you to pass that.
On CA -15, the 2% land fund, I woke up this morning thinking about the Hamakua lands,
and the sale of those lands by the County. Then I wondered, how are we to prevent any
of the property purchased by the 2% land fund from being sold, traded, transferred, or
whatever. So, I researched it this morning, and in other places in the Country they
include a clause that runs with the land that says something to the effect that, "This land
was purchased with public funds and shall be held in public trust for the use by all the
people of Hawaii county. It shall never be sold, traded, transferred, or mortgaged." I
think that is real important to include with these lands because it is our tax money that is
buying it. I think it's also really important to include in the legislation, in the Charter
amendment, that the highest and best uses for matching funds. Also, the use of this
money, like the land fund versus police and fire; this is not an either /or proposition. At
hearings to suspend the 2% fund last year, at the last reading, union people showed up in
tears saying take the 2 %, not our jobs. There are plenty of ways to solve the budget
crisis, and 2 million dollars here is not going to make a huge difference. The County's
major job is to protect citizens' health and welfare, and Cory Harden is right; open space
doesn't require expensive services like development.
We know the people voted one more time for the 2 %, and I'm very worried that they are
going to be very confused about 1 %, and then we can have the ordinance up to 2 %. I'm
worried it wouldn't pass; and I'm also worried if it doesn't pass, the administration will
turn around and say, "See, they never wanted it, they don't care about open space." I
have been hearing things from people on the street like, "1 %, that's only 2 million, what
are we going to buy with that ?" "That won't buy anything, why vote for that ?" "How
come they no listen ?" "Why should I vote, they don't listen ?" Then, the thing that
thoroughly depressed me was one of my kids on the Kealakehe tennis team asked me
what I did for work; I said that for the last four years I have been working on setting aside
2% of property taxes to purchase open space. We asked the County to approve it through
the Council twice, and they said, "No." We collected 10,000 signatures and over 6,000
of them were invalidated. We got it on the ballot, and then they deleted the purpose
clause. Then we got five seats to say they will reinstate the purpose clause if those
people were elected, and we knew we were good to go. And I'm telling this to a teenage
girl, no less, and I said the 63% of the people voted for it, and then the Council suspended
it for two years.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Hecht, your time is up.
7
MS. HECHT: Okay, so anyway, this all makes me very sad, and I certainly do hope you
could reinstate the 2% amount. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Do we have anyone else in Kona to testify?
MR. HIRT: No Mr. Chair; that was our final testifier today.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. That concludes statements from the public on
agenda items. Let's move on to approval of the minutes of the last meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 12, 2010
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to approve the minutes of February 12, 2010?
Ms. Jarman moved to approve the minutes of
the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by
Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMM. 242
From commission attorney Levi Hookano, dated February 25, 2010, requesting
permission to correct a formatting error contained in CA -7 that passed second reading
on February 12, 2010.
Ms. Osborne moved to correct the formatting
error in CA -7 in accordance with Comm. 242.
Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui and Unger.
NEW BUSINESS
SECOND READING OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTER AMENDMENTS:
C12: INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS (Draft 3)
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.
Amended and held over February 12, 2010
(Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -12 at second reading by Mr. Unger and
duly seconded by Ms. Kawauchi as amended February 12, 2010 by substituting "registered
voters" with "valid votes cast. ")
CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion on this proposed amendment? Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: I would like to move to postpone discussion of CA -12 until we have had
discussion of CA -16, because CA -16 amends the same provision of the Charter and it is
much more detailed; so I think we should dispose of that first.
Ms. Jarman moved to postpone discussion
on CA -12 until after discussion of CA -16.
Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by
the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CA -15: LAND FUND (Draft 3)
Adds new sections to the Hawaii county charter. Establishes a public access, open
space, and natural resources preservation fund and commission and establishes
procedures for the lands to be selected for preservation.
Amended and held over February 12, 2010
(Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -15 at second reading by Ms. Kawauchi
and duly seconded by Ms. Osborne as amended February 12, 2010 by substituting it with
language contained in Comm. 218.)
9
COMM. 243:
From Commissioner Scott Unger requesting to include language regarding voluntary
contributions to the land fund in Section (b) of Comm. 218; that portion of the sentence
was inadvertently omitted in the motion to approve the substitute language.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to include the excluded language from section
(b) in Comm. 218?
Mr. Nahale -a moved to include the excluded
language as noted in Comm. 243. Seconded by
Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion on the original motion? Ms. Kawauchi.
MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I have discussion concerning subsection (a) and in
particular the underscored language, "Deposits to the fund will occur at a minimum of
twice a year, but directly after a majority of the taxes have been collected." I feel that
language is unclear and that we should move to clean the language up by adding more
specificity as to the time of the actual collections. In our discussion at the February
meeting, we had heard from the finance department representative, Ms. Sako, that what
the interpretation by the department would be concerning this language is that the
collection would be made in March and again in September; and after the tax collection
due dates for each fiscal year. So, I would propose that if we were to move this to pass
second reading that we should include language that makes the collection schedule more
definite and more certain; so there is no ambiguity as to when the deposits will occur into
the fund.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion? Is that the motion?
MS. KAWAUCHI: I could make it a motion. May I make a motion at this time?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Let me check with Mr. Hookano. Mr. Hookano, the question is
whether or not Ms. Kawauchi can make a motion at this point in time to amend CA -15.
MR. HOOKANO: Yes, she can make a motion to amend at any time. I would ask that it
be kind of specific so we know what the commission is voting on. So, if she has specific
language she would like to insert, that would be preferable to a general statement. It
should be specific as to the language that you would be inserting.
10
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Kawauchi.
Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend the last sentence
in subsection (a) of CA -15 to read, "Deposits to
the fund will occur at a minimum of twice a year,
but directly after the majority of the taxes have
been collected, and no later than March and again
in September of each fiscal year after the tax
collection due dates." Seconded by Ms. Jarman.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: I have a question; could Nancy Crawford come forward? I've been on
the Commission long enough with Alapaki to now have these thoughts come to my mind
about how specific to get. I seconded it because I think it is an important issue; but what
I worry about is that this is a Charter amendment, and how long have we had in this
county the tax collections being essentially February and August, when the tax bills are
due, and what are the chances of that changing? I would hate for us to put in March and
September if that were to change; but I totally understand the point that Commissioner
Kawauchi is making.
NANCY CRAWFORD
(At this time Nancy Crawford, Finance Director, came forward to address members of the Charter
Commission.)
MS. CRAWFORD: I can't tell you how long it has been. It's probably for as long as this
has been in the County's hands, and perhaps before that, in the State. I'm not sure that it
is likely; we don't have plans to change it, but it certainly could. In general, I think it's
better to be less specific in the Charter, because it does allow for that flexibility, if
something else should change. We felt that having the language that said, "... directly
after the majority of the taxes have been collected..." which is twice a year. Although, I
would say it is in September and again in March; if you are looking at the fiscal year, the
first payment is collected in September. My recommendation would be not to tie it down
to those months.
MS. JARMAN: If you were to interpret this the way it is without the proposed
amendment, "...directly after the majority of taxes have been collected..." and assuming
the system doesn't change, when would the deposits be made?
MS. CRAWFORD: In the months that you have mentioned. Our first tax collection
comes in near the end of August, and it takes a while for those all to be posted; and so the
first transfer would be sometime in September. One of the reasons we didn't want to pin
it down too much, as much as it currently reads in the County Code; does not benefit the
land fund. This is more beneficial, because instead of waiting until December to transfer,
we would transfer it right after our majority collections. Then we also have the freedom
to make another transfer, as it goes around the year, we would at least, at a minimum, do
11
it in September, probably in March, and then in June, because we would want to take in
all the collections we received through the fiscal year.
MS. JARMAN: That would take care of all the late taxes or other taxes you have
collected through legal means, etcetera; the ones that would come out in June.
MS. CRAWFORD: Correct, because we are collecting taxes all year long and we have
tax sales that bring in additional tax revenue. Actually, I said June, but it would probably
be posted in July, but it would be for the June 30 deadline.
MS. JARMAN: Thank you. That is all the questions that I have.
MS. KAWAUCHI: The reason I proposed the amendment was because when I look at
the language, "...directly after the majority of the taxes have been collected...," I guess if
I was a member of the public and I didn't know what the common practice of the County
was, I really wouldn't know when they would be making a decision. It seems like there
are other dates that could be operable as well; June, or - - -I just thought that it wasn't clear
enough to me, in my mind. I also have a question which is if the Charter states,
"Deposits to the fund will occur at a minimum of twice a year, but directly after the
majority of the taxes have been collected...," does the ordinance say something different;
is the land fund funded in December; and does that pose a conflict between what is said
in the Charter and what is said in the ordinance?
MS. CRAWFORD: I'm not the attorney but I would think that the Charter would trump
the County Code; but that is not my call.
MS. HONMA: I have a question going along with what Jamae is trying to do. If you
wanted to be a little bit more specific than what it says here, but we don't want to be tied
down with the months; would the term, "30 days" work? It could say 30 days after the
collection; or something like that. Would that work?
MS. CRAWFORD: I think you could do that too; 30 days after the majority of the taxes
are collected is probably reasonable. We definitely want to give ourselves enough time
to get everything in and posted. The taxes are due before the end of August and then we
take two to three weeks to have those posted. We could, if required, make one transfer
then, and another one a little bit later; but it is more efficient for us if we have collected
the majority of the taxes and then do that. That is probably preferable to identifying
specific months.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any further questions for Ms. Crawford? Thank you
Ms. Crawford. Is there any further discussion?
MS. KAWAUCHI: If stating March and again September of each fiscal year is too much
detail to put into the Charter, I think I would be inclined to go with 30 days after the
majority of the taxes have been collected. Can I withdraw my motion and propose a new
motion?
12
CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes.
MS. KAWAUCHI: I will withdraw my motion and propose a new motion.
Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend the last sentence
in subsection (a) of CA -15 to read, "Deposits to
the fund will occur at a minimum of twice a year,
but no later than 30 days after the majority of taxes
have been collected." Seconded by Mr. Kealoha.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Shumway.
MR. SHUMWAY: Does 30 days provide enough time for the Finance Department? Are
you comfortable with that number, Ms. Crawford?
MS. CRAWFORD: If the language reads "30 days after the majority of taxes are
collected," then that works fine. If you tied it to some earlier date, we would transfer
anyways. If you had said 10 days, we would transfer whatever we had, but that wouldn't
accomplish what you are trying to accomplish; 30 days is okay.
MS. OSBORNE: Would 45 days be better? We just heard hesitancy the last time. It
seemed like 30 days might be a challenge.
MS. CRAWFORD: 45 days would probably allow for more funds to be in there and
reported to make the transfer. We are going to pick up whatever we have at that point;
and the earlier you cut if off, the less you have. We don't leave it open; our intention
when we said in this language was that "directly after" but 30 days is okay with that too,
because the idea is we know when we have the majority posted, and it probably would be
within 30 days.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any further questions? Thank you Ms. Crawford. Is there
any further discussion? I have a comment. The sentence, to me, doesn't make sense
because of the way it is set up. The front part of it says, "Deposits to the fund will occur
at a minimum of twice a year...." That means, to me, you are going to have a minimum
of two and you can deposit more times a year. Then you have "but" in there, and then it
says pursuant to the motion, "no later than 30 days after the majority of the taxes have
been collected." So it seems like that modifier doesn't work in there, with that "but" in
there. I think the intent is there is going to be two main deposits and then the County will
have the ability to make additional deposits as they collect taxes throughout the year.
But, the way it is written, I don't think is correct to give the effect of that.
MS. KAWAUCHI: So, the amendment makes it worse.
13
CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't think it makes it worse, but it's just not set up correctly with
that "but" in there. I think the language that was added to the motion modifies that there
are two main deposits, but it also affects any other deposits they might want to make.
MS. KAWAUCHI: What if it was, "... and no later than...." Would that help?
MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, it could say, "Deposits to the fund will occur twice a year, no
later than 30 days after the majority of taxes have been collected, and at other times when
monies are available and accounted for." I'm not sure - --
MS. CRAWFORD: You probably wouldn't like this, but, it could be "... as deemed
appropriate by the finance department." I'm not sure you would want to say it that way.
I understand where you are going with that, you just don't want to restrict us to only two
times a year, and I think that is important; and that is a problem in the current ordinance.
Maybe something like, "Deposits to the fund will occur at a minimum of twice a year to
include deposits made within 30 days..." I'm not sure how your language reads right
now, but you are somehow trying to include those with the fact that it is a minimum of
twice - --
CHR. HAITSUKA: Why don't we take a quick break and we can work on some
language and then come back on.
RECESS: At 2:24 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess.
RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 2:35 p.m.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi.
MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I would like to withdraw my previous motion and make a
new motion.
Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend the last sentence
in subsection (a) of CA -15 to read, "Deposits to
the fund will occur three times a year, and no later
than (1) 45 days after the majority of taxes have
been collected and, (2) with the final payment at the
end of the fiscal year." Seconded by Ms. Osborne.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Crawford, can we trouble you one more time? Did you hear the
motion?
14
MS. CRAWFORD: I missed the very beginning, and I just want to make sure that you
still said, "at a minimum," or is it just "three times a year."
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi, can you repeat your motion again?
MS. KAWAUCHI: Sure. The motion would be to subsection (a). It would delete the last
sentence of subsection (a), which is underscored in our present draft, in its entirety and the
motion replaces that language with the following: "Deposits to the fund will occur three
times a year, and no later than (1) 45 days after the majority of taxes have been collected
and, (2) with the final payment at the end of the fiscal year."
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Crawford, do you have any comment on that motion?
MS. CRAWFORD: My only comment is that you are specifying three transfers per year
period. I can certainly live with that if that's what you want.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Currently, how often are these transfers made; how many times a
year? I know it's not being made now, but when they were being made.
MS. CRAWFORD: You know, I can't say for sure, but I can tell you there have been at
least three per year. I'm not sure if there were additional ones at any certain times. But,
when we get around to year -end, I think the way you have written it, fiscal year -end, gives
us the flexibility to actually make the deposits at the appropriate time.
MS. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if the language is clear enough that
the first two payments happen after the taxes have been collected. Is the language clear
enough?
MS. KAWAUCHI: I think so.
MS. JARMAN: I had the same question. Couldn't that be interpreted to mean that 45
days after the second set of taxes has been collected, which would be 45 days after
September? Wouldn't the majority of taxes have been collected in September?
MS. CRAWFORD: If you lock us into technicalities, yes, the September collection is
usually larger. August payments are usually larger than the February total receipts. But
that is not our intention. When we talk about the majority of taxes being collected, we
know we collect two times a year, and that's our intention to make the transfer as soon as
we have the money. But, yes, it could certainly be interpreted that we only pay once then
and two times in June, I suppose.
MS. JARMAN: That's how it reads to me.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Crawford, how about if we used assessments instead of
collection? Real property taxes are assessed twice a year, in February and August, right?
15
MS. CRAWFORD: I think you want to use the term "collection," because what we are
talking about is receiving payments. We receive payments, and that is what we are trying
to tie our transfer to the fund to. This is a cash flow issue and so it is not the assessment.
Assessment has a technical meaning in real property tax terms, and the assessment is a
valuation.
CHR. HAITSUKA: What else can we use?
MS. OSBORNE: Bi- annual collection?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Bi- annual collection, is that part of the terminology used?
MS. OSBORNE: After the majority of the bi- annual taxes have been collected?
MS. CRAWFORD
Or the taxes have been collected bi- annually.
MS. JARMAN: That is still once a year. We could say, "... after each bi- annum...." It's
terrible having been an English major.
MS. CRAWFORD: Actually, I think you mean "semi- annual" not "bi- annual."
MS. JARMAN: Semi.
MS. KAWAUCHI: There is a different proposal that I would like to discuss, before trying
to withdraw and moving for a new language. The language would be, "Deposits to the
fund will occur three times per year. The first deposit to the fund will occur no later than
45 days after the majority of taxes have been collected in the first half of the fiscal year,
the second deposit to the fund will occur no later than 45 days after the majority of taxes
have been collected in the second half of the fiscal year, and the third deposit to occur a
the end of the fiscal year." Would that work?
CHR. HAITSUKA: We have to ask Ms. Crawford.
MS. CRAWFORD: I don't see that that is going to interfere with us making transfers to
the fund at the appropriate times.
MS. OSBORNE: I guess the intent is to somehow get the language so that it is not all
paid at the very end of the fiscal year.
MS. CRAWFORD: I understand that's the concern here, and that's why I want to leave it
to you folks. I honestly think that by trying so hard to make sure that we don't just make
one transfer on the last day of the fiscal year, you are eliminating the opportunity for us to
make earlier transfers when it is appropriate. That is certainly okay with me, but I am not
sure that is really what you had hoped for.
16
MS. KAWAUCHI: Perhaps that may be resolved by yet another sentence which says,
... and further transfers may be made at the discretion of the finance department." Then it
is clear that there are three transfers; one in the first half of the fiscal year, the second in
the second half, and the third to be made at the end of the fiscal year, and then further
transfers to be made a the discretion of the finance department. That then gives you more
leeway should further transfers be requested by the council or - - -I'm just trying to figure it
out.
MS. CRAWFORD: Actually that is what I was trying to say. If we have additional taxes
that are collected, and it's not immediately after tax collection period, say it's in December
and we are making a land purchase and those funds would be helpful to the land purchase,
that's only going to happen if you have given us the freedom to do that.
MS. JARMAN: Would saying, "Deposits to the fund will be made at least quarterly," be
saying the same thing, and not hamstringing it too much? It seems simpler to say at least
quarterly if we are going to do four times a year anyways. But, I don't know if that makes
sense.
MS. CRAWFORD: I don't have a problem with saying they will be made at least
quarterly. We've been talking about semi - annual and then a clean up, but we can transfer
four times a year with whatever we have collected.
MS. KAWAUCHI: So, one idea would be, "Deposits to the fund will occur quarterly
within the fiscal year; and further transfers to be made at the discretion of the finance
department."
MS. JARMAN: I would just say "... at least quarterly," and if they want to do it twice in
one quarter, as long as they do it in each quarter, they can do it whenever they would
want. They would have to do it at least once in each quarter, if they wanted to do it twice
in the fourth quarter because it makes sense, they could do it that way.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think quarterly would work, because the first quarter would end in
September, then you have December, March, and the end of the fiscal year. That seems to
work.
MS. JARMAN: Then it's just simple.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes.
MS. JARMAN: "Deposits to the fund shall occur at a minimum, quarterly."
MS. KAWAUCHI: "Deposits to the fund shall occur quarterly," taking the minimum out.
MS. JARMAN: Well if for some reason or other they wanted to make it twice in the
fourth quarter or any other quarter.
17
MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, I can't think of any reason you would want to stop us from
doing that by pinning us down to only allowing once a quarter.
MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I think saying minimum was fine. I think the intent is
to say there are a minimum number of transfers that need to be made, and we don't need
to say anything more than that, in my opinion.
MS. OSBORNE: "At a minimum" gives flexibility, just the example she stated, if they
need that extra for a land purchase at a certain time.
MS. KAWAUCHI: So what I have down is, "Deposits to the fund shall occur at a
minimum quarterly; and further transfers to be made at the discretion of the finance
department."
MS. JARMAN: No, you don't need the last part; because if it is "at a minimum," they
have discretion to do it whenever else. So, "Deposits to the fund will occur at a minimum
on a quarterly basis." Does that make sense? That is how I would word it.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that works.
MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair I would like to withdraw my previous motion and make a
new motion.
Ms. Kawauchi moved to delete the last
sentence in subsection (a) of CA -15 and
replace it with, "Deposits to the fund shall
occur at a minimum, on a quarterly basis."
Seconded by Ms. Osborne.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Any discussion?
MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I know our Legislative Research Branch is going to say to
change the word, "will" to "shall."
MS. KAWAUCHI: And that is very appropriate, so I will amend my motion.
Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend her
previous motion to say, "Deposits to
the fund shall occur at a minimum,
on a quarterly basis."
MS. JARMAN: At a minimum, quarterly. You just want to change "will" to "shall."
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi.
MS. KAWAUCHI: I will strike what I just said, and change "will to "shall."
W-1
Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend her previous
motion to change "will" to "shall." Seconded
by Ms. Jarman, and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
MS. JARMAN: That was just a vote on changing "will" to "shall;" now we have to vote
on the main motion.
CHR. HAITSUKA: So, that was a vote on the motion to amend the motion. So the vote
now is on Ms. Kawauchi's motion to amend subsection (a). Is there any further
discussion?
The motion to delete the last sentence in
subsection (a) of CA -15 and to replace it
with, "Deposits to the fund shall occur at
a minimum, on a quarterly basis" was
carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on CA -15 as amended?
MS. HONMA: I have one question. In section (c) they talk about preservation; and
when the original thing came out, they didn't have any money appropriated for
maintenance or preservation. Does that mean that they want to change that and allow
money to be used for preservation? The very first one that came out said that no money
was to be used for maintenance or preservation, if I remember correctly. When I was
reading through this, I now see that they have preservation of historic or culturally
important land areas, protection of natural resources, and so on. Does that now mean that
money can be used for preservation and those kinds of things? And I'm assuming that
maintenance is a part of that preservation.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't know.
19
MS. JARMAN: You should go to law school. That is the kind of question we ask
students on exams. Does preservation, in and of itself, include maintenance? That's an
interesting question. Can you preserve it without maintaining it?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Crawford.
MS. CRAWFORD: If I could just make one comment. It says, "Monies in this fund
shall be used solely to: 1) Purchase or otherwise acquire lands or property entitlements in
the County of Hawaii for...." And that is the purpose of those lands, not how the money
can be spent, is my read of that.
MS. OSBORNE: That is how I read that also.
MS. HONMA: So that means the monies cannot be used to preserve, is that correct?
MS. CRAWFORD: That is correct. That is why I don't think it is necessary to then have
a whole list of things that you cannot spend the money on, because it says, "solely ", with
emphasis, to purchase or otherwise acquire lands or property entitlements; period, The
rest of it is the reasons, not how to spend the money.
MS. HONMA: I guess because it says "including" and that is where I got that idea.
There is that word, "including," and that's where I get the impression that it's including
those reasons and you can use the money for that.
MS. CRAWFORD: Well, it's also for public outdoor recreation and education.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi.
MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, maybe part of the reason why it's being read this way is
because of the use of commas and semi - colons which kind of makes it look like it's
another clause.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway.
MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair, going back to the January meeting, and that was the
original language, the uses are the same. It looks like they are just copied directly; in a
different format, but the same wording.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think the intent was to purchase lands for preservation, but I don't
know if that necessarily carries through with the way it was written; but I think that was
the intent in that Section, 1).
MS. JARMAN: It might make it clear to say, 1) Purchase or otherwise acquire lands for
property entitlements in the County of Hawaii for: i) public outdoor recreation and
education, including.......; ii) da da, da da, da da; iii) etc.
20
Ms. Jarman moved to amend subsection (c)
by breaking up the sentence using i) and ii)
and iii), etcetera, to help clarify how monies
in the fund shall be used. Seconded by
Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, we are back to our original motion to approve CA -15 for
second reading. Is there any further discussion?
The motion to approve CA -15 as amended
at second reading was carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, we have a minor procedural point of order. Under our rules,
once we substantively amended it, it has to go for another reading. Since we don't have
time to have another reading, we have to have a motion to suspend the rules; that has to
be seconded, and according to Robert's Rules voted on by a majority of the entire
membership, which is six people.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, a motion to suspend the rules, does that have to be on
the agenda, or can we move?
MR. HOOKANO: You can make that motion. It doesn't have to be on the agenda to
suspend the rules.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to suspend the rules for CA -15 so we don't have
to carry it over for another hearing.
MR. NAHALE -A: Thank you to our parliamentarian.
21
Mr. Nahale -a moved to suspend the rules
to be able to vote on CA -15 at second
reading. Seconded by Ms. Jarman and
carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we are back to CA -12 (Draft 3) and CA -16 (Draft 2)
CA -16: INITIATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS (Draft 2)
Amends Section 15 -1 of the Hawaii county charter. 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.
Amended and held over February 12, 2010
(Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -16 at second reading by Ms. Jarman and
duly seconded by Mr. Shumway as amended February 12, 2010 to substitute it with the
language in Comm. 212 and to replace, "persons who voted," with "valid votes cast. ")
CHR. HAITSUKA: At the same time as CA -16, we moved forward CA -12 to have a
discussion, because those two proposed amendments relate to the same subject, and I
think they appear to be contradictory. So, I think we would need to approve one and not
the other. Is there any discussion on CA -16 or CA -12? Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, our commission attorney, Mr. Hookano, has raised some
issues regarding CA -16 (Draft 2) that need to be corrected. But I didn't get this until
yesterday and really haven't had much time to look at it. I was wondering if we could
take the rest of the business and then take a recess, and then you could assign someone to
work with Mr. Hookano to look at those suggestions and see what amendments might be
made. He didn't make specific suggestions for amendments, but it seems clear that
without them there are some serious problems.
CHR. HAITSUKA: So, Ms. Jarman, you want to postpone discussion on these two
amendments until after we get through with the other new business items?
MS. JARMAN: Right, and then take a recess to try to work them out.
22
Ms. Jarman moved to postpone discussion
on CA -12 (Draft 3) and CA -16 (Draft 2) until
the end of New Business items. Seconded by
Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
CA -17: REAPPORTIONMENT TO REDISTRICTING (Draft 2)
Amends Section 3 -17 of the Hawaii county charter. 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 1st prior to the census year to give
them more time to complete their work with the exception of the 2011 commission.
Amended and held over February 12, 2010
(Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -17 at second reading by Mr. Kaulukukui
and duly seconded by Mr. Unger as amended February 12, 2010 to clarify that the 2011
redistricting commission will be appointed by March 1, 2011.)
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on CA -17? Mr. Hookano, at the last
meeting, you raised the concern about the timing in the present draft. Has that been
addressed in the current draft as of that meeting? Was that addressed in your revision?
MR. HOOKANO: Yes, in the current draft it has been addressed to read that the 2011
commission will be appointed according to the current provisions of the Charter. They
can't be appointed by July of this year, because that is going to come and go.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on CA -17? Are we ready to vote?
The motion to approve CA -17 Draft 2 at second
reading was carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui and Unger.
23
CA -38: VOLUNTARY STATUS OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS (Draft 2)
Amends Section 13 -4, relating to Boards and Commissions. Amendment retains item (g)
and amends the amount a board or commission member may receive as compensation.
(Note: CA -38 was amended to Draft 2 at the February 12, 2010 meeting. The amendment
retains language in subsection (g), changes the word "shall" to "may," and changes the
reference "from five -times the state minimum hourly wage," to "two -times the state
minimum hourly wage. ")
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -38?
Mr. Shumway moved to approve CA -38 at
second reading. Seconded by Ms. Osborne
and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a,
Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui
and Unger.
RECESS: At 3:30 p.m., the Chair called for a' /z hour recess.
RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 4:10 p.m.
Back to CA -12 Draft 3 and CA -16 Draft 2
CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's get started again. Commissioner Kawauchi has been excused.
We were discussing CA -16; and in particular the communications that we got from the
Commission's attorney. There are actually two communications from the Commission's
attorney. One relating to non - substantive format corrections, and another that addresses
certain legal concerns. I wanted to address the communication with non - substantive
format corrections and get that one out of the way first.
COMM. 247:
From Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated March 10, 2010, transmitting
proposed amendments to CA -16 (Draft 2) to correct various formatting errors contained
in CA -16. These amendments would only correct formatting errors and make stylistic
changes to CA -16 which does not affect its meaning or purpose.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion?
24
Ms. Osborne moved to adopt the non - substantive
format corrections to CA -16 Draft 2 as outlined in
Comm. 247, from Commission attorney Levi Hookano,
dated March 10, 2010. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and
carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The second communication we got from the Commission's attorney
is a little bit more extensive.
COMM. 246:
From Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated March 10, 2010, transmitting several
legal issues with CA -16 (Draft 2) which must be corrected.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm going to go over it point by point. The first concern involved a
conflict in the language of Section 15 -2, the definition section; particularly the definition
for Ballot Summary. In effect, the Commission's attorney is recommending that we
delete a portion of the definition of Ballot Summary as it relates to the language, "...and
its major effects." That language could be considered confusing and conflicting with
language in that definition relating to an "impartial explanation." So the recommendation
is to delete the last portion of the definition of Ballot Summary starting with "and" and
ending with "effects." So it would be deleting that portion of that definition which states,
... and its major effects."
Mr. Nahale -a moved to delete the language,
11
... and its major effects," from the definition
of "Ballot Summary" in Section 15 -2. Seconded
Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The second concern involves subsection 15 -4 (b)(2). The concern
here is that there is a reference to "completed petition," which could be misleading
because the petition referenced in that section is actually the petition form prior to it
25
being filled out by the persons who signed it. So, the suggestion is to delete the word
"completed" from subsection (b)(2).
MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, could we ask Marian Wilkins from Kona to approach too, so
we give them the opportunity to comment since this was initially their bill.
MS. WILKENS: I'm not good at shuffling a lot of papers around, so bear with me. Can
we make a comment on the first ballot summary part that you just voted on; or is it too
late?
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we have already voted on that. Right now we have before us
the concern that was addressed in Mr. Hookano's memo that was relating to the word
"completed" in subsection (b)(2).
MS. WILKENS: I just wanted to say that we did mean, "effect," not "affect." That was
deliberate. We'll go on to the next part. In the definitions, you will see that the petition
form is not the completed form. It is explained in the definitions. In 15 -2, under Ballot
Question, Ballot Summary, Ballot Title, and then Signed Petition; right above that is
Petition Form, at the bottom of 15 -2. That means without the voter's signature and then
the Signed Petition means with the signatures. Just to make sure that everybody knows
there are two different definitions. One is Petition Form and one is Signed Petition.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Then what is a Completed Petition Form?
MS. WILKENS: Then we could take out the word "form," but if it's completed, the form
is filled out with the required information that the committee -- -That would be their part;
that is before the petition is circulated. That is part of the preliminary work of what the
committee does.
MS. HECHT: This is Debbie Hecht. The Completed Petition Form means that it has
gone through the process, back and forth from the petitioner's committee to the clerk,
through corporation counsel, and then back to the committee. That is the "completed
petition form" that will be used to collect signatures.
MS. WILKENS: Yes, Debbie has explained it much better than I. It is before it goes out
for the general public to have their signatures added.
MS. HECHT: But it has gone through the process.
MS. WILKENS: It is deliberate the way we have it. You have to look at the definitions
to make sure what you are talking about here.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: So, Marian, what would be on the completed petition form that is not on
the petition form?
26
MS. WILKENS: 15 -4(a), "The clerk shall provide the committee with a sample petition
form upon request." And (b), "Prior to circulating an amendment or revision petition, the
committee shall give notice to the clerk of the...." The names and addresses, and the
completed petition form; I guess all of that would be on there. That is what the
completed form has; all of this on it, ballot summary, ballot title. All of this has to be
done before they start circulating the petition so that when they circulate the petition, the
public can see exactly what it is, and the clerk also knows in advance what will be on the
ballot if it is a successful petition. So, everything is done beforehand instead of waiting
until the end, you want it done up front so everybody knows exactly what is happening.
Then you don't argue about it at the end. Also, the clerk has as their advisor, the
corporation counsel.
MS. JARMAN: I am still unclear because the petition form is basically what is going to
be in the petition but without the signatures. So aren't you talking about the same thing?
MS. WILKENS: If you think that is redundant, you can take it out.
MS. JARMAN: I think Levi is right on that. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to remove "completed" from Sectionl5 -4?
Ms. Jarman moved to remove the word
"completed" from 15- 4(b)(2). Seconded
by Ms. Osborne and carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The next concern in our attorney's memorandum concerns
determination in Section 15 -4(f) relating to the involvement of the corporation counsel in
reviewing the language of the proposed petition. So, the suggestion is to add, after, "If the
clerk...," add "or corporation counsel proposes alternative language...." So, "or corporation
counsel" would be added after "clerk" and before, "proposes," in subsection 15 -4(f). So that
gives the corporation counsel the ability to propose language for the petition.
MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, when we worked on this language last year, in terms of the
initiative and referendum, the problem was how do you resolve a conflict in language
between what the clerk might want and what the petition committee wants? The thought was
that it was the petition committee that drives the process; it's what they want. I wouldn't
mind adding something to have corporation counsel approve it to make sure there are no
27
legal problems, or it's not something they cannot do; but it seems to me the final language of
the petition should go with the petitioner's committee rather than the county clerk. So, I
wouldn't mind adding something that it would then be given to the corporation counsel to
ensure that it's within the legal authority or it's somehow to amend the charter that way.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think the way it's written the committee has the last say as to what
is included, and the clerk only can propose language; but that language is not binding
upon the committee. The same would go for the corporation counsel. I guess we could,
instead, put the corporation counsel on the back end maybe, as to review and approve as
to form, or render some kind of opinion as to whether or not it complies with the law.
MS. HECHT: Can I make a comment?
CHR. HAITSUKA: In just a minute.
KENNETH GOODENOW
(At this time Ken Goodenow, County Clerk, came forward to address members of the Charter
Commission.)
MR. GOODENOW: Ken Goodenow, County Clerk. I appreciate what Ms. Jarman said.
The point is to have the petitioner's committee, as I understand it, be the final say. But, I
do note, that subsequently, in Section 15- 5(c)(2), it says, "For purposes of certification,
any petition shall be found insufficient that: (2) Proposes an amendment or revision not
subject to the powers of this article." The clerk determines the sufficiency, so even
thought in the other section it says it is up to the petitioner's committee; here in this part
it seems that it would be the clerk. So, I just wanted to point that out. Of course, we
have no objection to corporation counsel, and not the clerk, determining anything when it
comes to this chapter. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Hecht, you had a comment?
MS. HECHT: Thank you, I did. The way the process works in 15 -4, is that the
petitioners give the information to the clerk, the clerk has time to come back with any
revisions or corrections, and it was assumed at that time, since the corporation counsel is
representing employees of the county, that the clerk, if he or she had questions would go
over and talk to corporation counsel and then come back to the petitioner's committee
with any amended language. We had exactly that problem in the 2 %, and that's exactly
why we wrote it like that; so the committee would have the last word, so it would go on
the ballot as they liked, not as the county wrote it which was the case with the 2 %. So it
is part of the process; we thought it was built in.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. I think the proposed suggestion would just make
it clearer that the corporation counsel has the ability to give some input into the proposed
language on the front end. We are going to get to the other section brought up by the
county clerk afterwards, because it kind of relates to this. So the suggestion is to add in,
"or corporation counsel" after the clerk in Section 15 -4(f). Do I have a motion?
•a
MS. OSBORNE: I'm having a little bit of trouble with that sentence, because if you are
putting in the "corporation counsel" but then right after the comma then "the clerk shall
give the committee notice...."
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think the front portion of that provision is who proposes alternative
language. Right now it is going to be proposed by the clerk, the suggestion is to add in
the corporation counsel too; so the corporation counsel has the ability to propose
alternative language to the committee. But ultimately the clerk is the communicator with
the committee.
MR. SHUMWAY: My question would be why would we need to add corporation
counsel? Because the clerk could, like Ms. Hecht suggests, consult him.
CHR. HAITSUKA: They are assuming that the corporation counsel is involved in the
process. Why not make it without an assumption, and just put it in there, so he has that
ability. I don't think we should go on an assumption.
MR. SHUMWAY: But currently it's "or," you're suggested language; so it is not
required.
CHR. HAITSUKA: It's not mandated, but they have the ability.
MR. SHUMWAY: But they do anyways, without that wording.
CHR. HAITSUKA: But it is only assumed, this way they are going to have the direct
ability to make a comment. Right now, if we don't put it in, the clerk can propose
language, but not the corporation counsel. So, do I have a motion? No?
Alright, let's move on to the discussion that was brought up by the county clerk, Section
15 -5(c). This relates back to that other provision because as Mr. Goodenow said,
although the committee, under 15 -4, has the ultimate decision on the form of the petition,
15 -5(c) says that the petition is not going to be certified under certain circumstances; one
being that the petition proposes an amendment or revision not subject to the powers of
this article. So someone makes that determination. What is lacking here is who makes
that determination. I think Mr. Goodenow assumes it is him. It doesn't say specifically
here, and our attorney's advice is to put it down in this particular section; who actually
makes that decision. Right now, we don't know who makes it. The suggestion was to
add the language at the end, "... as determined by the corporation counsel." That way it is
clear as to who makes that determination.
MS. JARMAN: The reason I actually kind of like that is because when I was the clerk I
had to make that decision, and I was an attorney, which helped, but I wasn't necessarily
familiar with that particular issue which happened to be a criminal and constitutional
issue. So I consulted with corporation counsel, but ultimately I was the one that was
responsible. This really is a legal question, so I wouldn't mind having it be corporation
counsel making that decision; not all clerks are going to have legal training.
29
MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, did you suggest that it say at the end of this, "... as
determined by the corporation counsel."
CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct.
Mr. Nahale -a moved to add language to
Section 15- 5(c)(2) to read, "...as determined
by the corporation counsel." in order to
clarify who makes the determination as to
the sufficiency of a petition. Seconded by
by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The next concern involved Section 15 -4(g), and this is a similar
problem to the one we just discussed. In Section 15 -4(g) it states that, "If the proposed
language is found to be within the power of charter amendment or revision of the County
of Hawaii, within five working days of finalization of the petition form, ballot title,
ballot question and ballot summary, the clerk shall:..." The problem is it doesn't say here
who is going to make that finding. The suggestion is to remove the word "found" and
insert, "determined by the corporation counsel." So it would state, "If the proposed
language is determined by the corporation counsel to be within the power of charter
amendment or revision of the County of Hawai`i..." That would make it consistent with
the changes that we just made.
Mr. Nahale -a moved to delete the word
"found" and insert, "determined by the
corporation counsel "in Section 15 -4(g).
Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried
by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The fifth concern addresses a conflict with the term "amendment of
the petition." From what I can tell by reading Mr. Hookano's memorandum and talking
C
to him, the concern is that if a petition is amended once it is already signed, what notice is
going to be given to those who have already signed it as to the changes. They may have a
difference of opinion as to whether or not they would still want to remain a signer to that
petition. That is the concern. The proposed solution would be to remove the word
"amend" from certain sections, or to limit amending the petition prior to submission for
signatures. So the committee can change the petition or amend it prior to submission for
signatures, but not after. So once somebody has signed, you cannot change the petition.
From a due process standpoint, I think that makes sense that somebody is not going to
sign something that later changes without them knowing. Is there any discussion?
MR. SHUMWAY: What was the proposed language?
CHR. HAITSUKA: There are two sections affected by this. Section 15 -3, the last
sentence says, "The committee shall have the power to amend or withdraw the petition as
provided for in this charter." As was pointed out, the word "petition" in the definition
section means the signed petition. So the withdrawal part is okay, so the
recommendation here would be to take out the words "amend" and "or." So it will state,
"The committee shall have the power to withdraw the petition as provided in this
charter." And then a new sentence would be added which states, "A petition form may
be amended by the committee prior to the circulation of the petition form for signature."
So that would limit amending the form. Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: Should we ask Ms. Wilkins?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Wilkins.
MS. WILKINS: We are a bit confused as to where we are, I'm afraid, because we are not
sure what you are talking about.
MS. HECHT: Are you talking about 15 -4(1)?
CHR. HAITSUKA: We are on 15 -3, the last sentence.
MS. HECHT: So, you are saying to delete, "to amend." Are you saying that the last
sentence in 15 -3 would read, "The committee shall have the power to withdraw the
petition as provided in this charter," but not "to amend ?"
CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct. And we would suggest adding an additional
sentence there that says, "A petition form may be amended by the committee prior to the
circulation of the petition form for signature."
MS. HECHT: Okay, that sounds fine. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The counterpart to this would be 15 -4(1). In that section it say, "If a
majority of the committee does not choose to amend a petition or collect additional
signatures, the clerk shall present the certificate to the county council at the first council
31
meeting where it can be legally agendized." The suggestion is to take out the phrase,
"amend a petition, or..." So it will say, "If a majority of the committee does not choose
to collect additional signatures..." So it would have that language deleted. The same
reason would be that amending a petition after it has been signed does not seem to be
something that should, or could, be done without notifying the signators.
MS. HECHT: We agree; that makes sense. Thank you.
MS. WILKINS: Yes, thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to amend Section 15 -3 and 15 -4(1) in accordance
with the recommendations of our attorney?
Ms. Osborne moved to delete the words,
"amend" and "or" from the last sentence in
Section 15 -3 and to delete the phrase, "amend
a petition or" from Section 15 -4(1). Seconded
by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The next concern involves Section 15 -4(p). And the same - --
MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I think you mean Section 15 -5(e), as it relates to
withdrawing a petitioners signature.
CHR. HAITSUKA: That's right, I skipped that one. So, Section 15 -5(e); there is a
concern here because it states that, "Individuals may withdraw their signatures by
submitting a written request to the clerk within fifteen days after the filing of an
amendment or revision petition." The concern is how does the signator know that the
petition was filed, because they have a limited time period in which to withdraw their
name.
So the suggestion is to give notice to the signators by publishing a notice in the paper and
tying that in to the time period in which the persons who wish to withdraw their
signatures; they must file that request. So the language that we came up with is, "Within
fourteen days of the filing of the petition, the committee shall give notice of the filing of
the petition by publishing a notice in two newspapers of general circulation in the county
of Hawai`i." The existing sentence would say, "Individuals may withdraw their
signatures by submitting a written request to the clerk within fifteen days after
32
publication of the notice." So the notice would be published fourteen days after the
petition is filed; once the notice is published, anyone who wants to withdraw their names
from the petition would have fifteen days to do so. That is the proposed suggestion. Is
there any discussion? Ms. Wilkins, Ms. Hecht, do you have any comments on that
proposed revision?
MS. WILKINS: I think that sounds like a good addition
MS. HECHT: The only thing is, is would you want to do it after the count, or before the
count? Sometimes there are multiple counts on petitions. Would you want to do it after
the final count is in? Otherwise, the committee, which is usually terribly under - funded,
would be doing all these ads in the paper. I would suggest that it be after the final count;
then publish that information too.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, does that suggest our proposed suggestion, the
timing; before of after the final count?
MR. HOOKANO: The language would have to be changed to reflect that. Right now the
language states that it will be within the filing. If it wants to reflect the timing as after the
final count of the signatures; that would have to be specifically mentioned. I think maybe
the clerks office or the elections office may be able to comment on the timing aspect of it.
I am not really familiar on how that works.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow, do you have any comments on that?
MR. GOODENOW: You are asking about how this fits in with the overall timing of the
process. It's kind of hard to say, because this is kind of fresh here. The council has 60
days to take action, then the council has to pass a resolution to put it on the ballot; you are
working backwards. At this point in time, I would be unable to answer that; I would need
more time to provide better comment. There is a withdraw procedure in the HRS
(Hawai`i Revised Statutes). Perhaps it would be wise just to say they withdraw by that
procedure. But, I do understand the notice requirement; otherwise, how would they
know? It's a very good point.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman.
MS. JARMAN: I think it is fine the way you are amending it. Did you take out "an
amendment ?"
CHR. HAITSUKA: I didn't. I was a little confused at first, but that refers back to
Section 15 -1. That is actually the title of the revision; it's actually not an amended
petition.
MS. JARMAN: Okay, thank you.
33
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? I'm just trying to think about the
comments about timing and if there is anything we can do, or should do, to try and
address that.
MS. JARMAN: Can I ask Pat Nakamoto a question? Pat, how often do have people
calling up asking to have their names taken off a petition?
PAT NAKAMOTO
(At this time Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator, came forward to address members
of the Charter Commission.)
MS. NAKAMOTO: Not that often; but we have had people withdraw their names from
petitions in the past.
MS. JARMAN: Do you see any problem with this fifteen day window and not having
notification? Is it enough of a problem to have to require the petitioner's committee to
take out an ad that nobody reads anyways? How many people read the notices in the
paper? If it's not that big of a problem, it seems to me we are putting out a requirement
on a petitioner's committee that isn't really that necessary. I just wanted to know how
may there were. She doesn't have to answer; I was just making a comment.
MS. HECHT: There was only one person that withdrew their signature from the 2%
petition.
MS. JARMAN: My sense is that it is fine the way it is.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I looked at this section, and there is no timing provision in it; so I
don't think the committee would be bound by any timing provision. It is just stating
various provisions that need to be done in order for the petition to be valid. Is it fine
without adding in the publication requirements? I think the only problem with that is if
we are going to have a deadline for somebody to withdraw, they should have notice. So I
think we should either take out the deadline, or address it a different way.
MR. SHUMWAY: Could it be addressed by like a certain number of days after they sign
the petition?
CHR. HAITSUKA: I guess so, but it would have to be before a certain time though,
because once the petition is sent up and certified, I think it might be too late.
MS. NAKAMOTO: The only thing I wanted to say was that in the past, when there is a
petition, there are those who are for the amendment, and those that are against. I recall in
the past that those who oppose an amendment purchased an ad asking people who wanted
to withdraw. There was a form in the newspaper that they could complete and turn back
in to our office. That is how some of the withdrawals were done in the past.
C
CHR. HAITSUKA: Maybe we could make it easier by saying something like,
"Individuals may withdraw their signatures by submitting a written request to the clerk
anytime prior to the certification of the petition." Mr. Hookano, do you see any problems
with that?
MR. HOOKANO: No.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion?
Mr. Nahale -a moved to amend Section
15 -5(e) to read, "Individuals may withdraw
their signatures by submitting a written
request to the clerk anytime prior to the
certification of the petition." Seconded by
Ms. Osborne and carried by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The next concern involves Section 154(p) and Section 15 -9. In
particular, Mr. Hookano mentions the requirements under State law as far as publishing
prior to the election. In his opinion, depending on when these Sundays may fall; they
may be outside of the period required by law.
MR. HOOKANO: Well, the Charter amendments will always go on the general election
ballot. The State Constitution says that falls on the second Tuesday following the first
Monday of November. So, three Sundays prior to that would only give sixteen days,
which is not in accordance with the State requirement for publication for Charter
amendments.
CHR. HAITSUKA: In the existing version of Article XV, it allows for forty -five days.
So the suggestion was to amend Section 154(p) and Section 15 -9, the publication
provisions, to be consistent with the existing provision of the Charter which then would
state something like, "The clerk shall publish the ballot title, ballot question, ballot
summary and arguments for and against the measure in..." And everything after that
would be deleted; and its place we would add, "...two newspapers of general circulation
in the County of Hawaii at least forty -five days prior to submission to the electors of the
county." And that same provision would be added to Section 15 -9. So, we would be
deleting from both provisions, the phrase, "...in the Sunday paper of two Hawaii Island
daily papers with the largest circulation for the three Sundays preceding the election."
35
Ms. Jarman moved to amend Section 154(p)
and Section 15 -9 to delete the phrase, "...in
the Sunday paper of two Hawaii Island daily
papers with the largest circulation for the three
Sundays preceding the election." The language
would be changed to read, "The clerk shall publish
the ballot title, ballot question, ballot summary
and arguments for and against the measure in
two newspapers of general circulation in the
County of Hawaii at least 45 days prior to
submission to the electors of the county."
Seconded by Ms. Osborne.
CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a motion, we have a second. Is there any discussion? Mr.
Shumway.
MR. SHUMWAY: It seems to me that one of the points of this is that is should be in the
Sunday paper. If they publish it in a Monday paper or Tuesday paper not everyone will
see it. I think part of the idea is that the Sunday paper is much more widely distributed
and read. So I think taking that out weakens the idea of what they are after.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I considered that myself, but I do a lot of legal publication and know
a lot of statutes and I don't know of any that just require a Sunday publication. I think
Sunday, maybe for some people; but for me, it's not the paper that I read. I understand
the intent, but I think you will find that most legal publication requirements in the statutes
are going to say you have to publish in newspapers in just general circulation or in a
particular county. I don't know if you necessarily have to have that Sunday. I think it
makes it a little bit more difficult and a little bit less flexible for the publication, given the
timing. Ms. Hecht, Ms. Wilkins; do you have any comments?
MS. WILKINS: I look at this not just as a legal requirement, but as an informational
education of the public of what they are voting on, so that's why we are trying to get it to
the highest circulation on both papers, and enough time so somebody will hopefully see
it. If it's running into a time restraint, then I would suggest that it be changed to maybe a
Friday paper, a Sunday paper, and maybe a Friday paper; but let's not try to cut back or
put it in a place where nobody is going to see it, like in a Monday paper. We want people
to know what they are voting on.
MS. HECHT: I think you understand the intent was to get it in the paper with the most
circulation; that was the intent, you were right.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a.
MR. NAHALE -A: I would rather have the more general 45 day language. This again is
the kind of micro - managing in the Charter that is challenging for me to be okay with. I
would rather it be more general. I support the 45 day language.
C
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Any other discussion? Alright, we have a motion
pending, if there is no further discussion, we'll take the vote.
The motion to amend Section 15 -4(p)
and Section 15 -9 was carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes,
Kaulukukui, Kawauchi
and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: This next concern, we wanted to address to Mr. Goodenow, the
County Clerk. This relates to Section 15 -6, in particular to the number of days in which a
petition can be withdrawn. I think the concern of our attorney was that there might not be
sufficient time under State law to pull it back.
MR. GOODENOW: We have to provide it sixty days prior, and we have to mail it thirty -
five days prior; so it would be much too late, 30 days, it would already be on the ballot
and out.
CHR. HAITSUKA: How much time would be required?
MR. GOODENOW: I would have to ask Pat Nakamoto what she would suggest. If they
do pass this, how much time or when should the limit be for withdrawing a petition?
MS. NAKAMOTO: Sixty days prior.
MR. GOODENOW: Do we turn in the language sixty days prior? Maybe we turn it in
and they withdraw on the same day? I think we would be alright with sixty days.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Wilkins, Ms. Hecht; do you have any
comments regarding changing that "thirtieth" day to "sixtieth day ?"
MS. HECHT: I think 60 days is fine. There is no problem with that; it obviously needs
to be in before it is put on the ballot.
MS. WILKINS: That is fine.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to amend Section 15 -6 to change "thirtieth
day" to "sixtieth" day?
37
Ms. Osborne moved to change the number
of days for a petitioners' committee to
withdraw a petition from 30 days to 60 days,
and to change the language in Section 15 -6
to read, "...but not later than the sixtieth day
immediately preceding the day scheduled for
a vote..." Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried
by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The next concern involves that same section, Section 15 -6. I think
the concerned raised by Mr. Hookano was that there is a reference to an intermediate
council action; which I understand from him does not exist. There is no such thing as an
intermediate council action. Is that right Mr. Hookano?
MR. HOOKANO: Yes, the County Council cannot on its own, adopt a Charter
amendment or revision without it going to the electorate, so there is no intermediate
action that can be done by the County Council that would adopt a petitioners' committee
proposal.
CHR. HAITSUKA: So, the suggestion would be to just take out that particular sentence
which starts with, "A petitioners' committee..." and ending with "... a charter amendment
or revision."
Ms. Jarman moved to delete the sentence in
Section 15 -6 which starts with, "A petitioners'
committee..." and ends with "...a charter
amendment or revision." Seconded by
Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we are down to the last one. This relates to Section 15 -7, and
the concern is that there is a reference in the second to the last sentence that says, "The
ballot for such measures shall contain the ballot summary and shall have below the ballot
C
title designated spaces in which to mark the ballot YES or NO." I think the concern is
that State law dictates what can be contained on a ballot; and it doesn't provide for a
ballot summary.
MS. HECHT: On the 2 %, the County submitted a summary that said that if they voted
for it, it would have the effect of deleting the purpose clause if they voted, YES, and if
they voted NO, then no money would be set aside. To me, that was what was meant by a
ballot summary; and the ballot title was the 2% Land Fund; and the ballot question was,
do you vote for or against it. So, it's very important to say YES or NO, so there are not
double negatives in the ballot question and it's very important to have a summary. And
they did have a summary which was vastly confusing to most voters.
MS. WILKINS: May I say something also? This is why, in the very first section of this,
of the definitions, when these wordings were okayed by the clerk and the corporation
counsel and the petitioners, and they resolved what was going to be on the petition, that is
exactly one of the most important things is to have that exact wording on the ballot. Does
State law forbid anything else on the ballot? I don't think it forbids it, it is just saying
what has to go on; but not that nothing else can go on. I'm hoping that's correct because
this is the way that this is done so purposely, so people can see what they are signing,
what they are going to be getting into, and then when the election comes, that's what it
says.
MS. HECHT: In addition to that, we should have done that with the original petition on
the 2 %. At' /z hour before the ballot language deadline to get into the State to get on the
ballot, the County shipped us the language that they were going to use; which was totally
confusing to voters. So that's why we put it way at the beginning along with the petition,
so it could all be hashed out at that point in time, and not be left to the last minute with
any surprises.
MS. WILKINS: It's a real safeguard for everybody. For the voters, they want to know
what they are voting on. I think this is so important in our democracy. Thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Hookano,
as far as the legality of putting a ballot summary on the ballot?
MR. HOOKANO: I think that should be addressed to our elections staff. I know that the
State law does say what can be placed on the ballot itself.
MR. GOODENOW: Cory Saiki, number two at elections, was sent over to the Elections
Office to help us with some of the requirements, but maybe there is some confusion over
the question. Usually, there is the question, but I don't believe there has ever been a
summary. I think we concur with Mr. Hookano's conclusions regarding that; but we are
double checking that right now.
MS. HECHT: Can I ask a question? Then what is it on the ballot that says, if you vote
for something that this is the effect, or if you vote against it, this will be the effect.
C
MR. GOODENOW: Well, the ballot question is allowed on, that is my understanding,
but we are waiting for Ms. Saiki to return.
MR. NAHALE -A: While we are waiting, Mr. Chair, can I ask a procedural question. So
this is third reading of this; we have the option of deferring to the next meeting, is that
correct?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, or suspending our rules. But I don't think we are going to have
the option of deferring because we have to submit our report. We are running across
some time deadlines.
MS. JARMAN: If we vote for all of these amendments, we are going to have to suspend
our rules again in order to not have another meeting.
MR. GOODENOW: When we look at Charter amendments, there are no summaries.
But they write the question so long -- -Here is an example: "Should the County Charter be
changed to establish an office of the legislative auditor to perform independent audit
functions, and that would 1) give exclusive authority to the County Council to appoint the
legislative auditor to a six year term subject to removal for cause by a 2/3 rd vote of the
County Council......" There are eight of them; so it's kind of like a summary in a
question.
So, I would say, no. We are looking at initiative; and with initiative there has been an
objective summary provided. So in the 2 %, which is not a Charter amendment, but under
initiative, it does seem that we have had summaries. Now, I don't know if we can infer
from that that the law would allow it for a Charter amendment; I would have to research
that more fully. The Charter amendments have not had any objective summaries that we
are aware of.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I guess the recommendation would be to take it out; take out the
sentence that says, "The ballot for such measures shall contain the ballot summary and
shall have below the ballot title designated spaces in which to mark the ballot YES or
NO." That doesn't preclude it from being included on the ballot if it's appropriate.
MS. HECHT: Can I make a comment? It's very important to have YES or NO because
there have been double negatives used in ballot language before. If there is a problem
with "ballot summary," if that is where the confusion is coming in and that is actually a
ballot question; maybe that is the source of confusion.
CHR. HAITSUKA: That sentence could be changed to take out "ballot summary" and
instead put "ballot question," which is defined in the definitions. That would be one way
to do it. We could say, "The ballot for such measures shall contain the ballot question
and shall have below the ballot title designated spaces in which to mark the ballot YES or
NO."
.R
Ms. Jarman moved to change the second to the
last sentence in Section 15 -7 to read, "The ballot
for such measures shall contain the ballot question
and shall have below the ballot title designated
spaces in which to mark the ballot YES or NO."
Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: So we have addressed all of the concerns raised by Mr. Hookano.
MS. WILKINS: Excuse me. Then do we need to take out the ballot summary as one of
the definitions in that case, since it is not going to be used on the ballot?
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think it is mentioned in other places.
MS. WILKINS: Alright, thank you.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we are back to the main motion to approve this at second
reading. We have to consider that we have CA -12 out there too.
MS. JARMAN: I think if we pass this, there is no need for CA -12.
CHR. HAITSUKA: If we pass this, then we would have to vote down CA -12, right.
MS. JARMAN: Yes, I think that's what we would have to do.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on this? Mr. Shumway.
MR. SHUMWAY: The thing we just talked about is repeated almost word for word in
another section. I don't know if we need to change that. It is Section 15 -4(o).
MR. NAHALE -A: While we are looking at that, I would just like to get your perspective
on the proposal with all the changes, particularly in comparison to CA -12. But maybe we
should handle this first and then we can - --
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you see what he is referring to?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, it is Section 15 -4(o). It would be the last sentence in (o), which
reads, "The ballot for such measures shall contain the final ballot summary and shall have
41
below the ballot title designated spaces in which to mark the ballot YES or NO." So to
make it consistent we should say, "The ballot for such measures shall contain the final
ballot question and shall have below the ballot title designated spaces in which to mark
the ballot YES or NO." Do we have a motion?
Mr. Shumway moved to change the last sentence
in Section 15 -4(o) to read, "The ballot for such
measures shall contain the final ballot question
and shall have below the ballot title designated
spaces in which to mark the ballot YES or NO."
Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Shumway. Mr. Nahale -a, you had some questions.
MR. NAHALE -A: I wanted to get some feedback on this proposal now with all the
changes we have made.
MR. GOODENOW: I think it would be a first for the Charter to have subsection (p) in it.
Just kidding; start off with a little humor. I hate to say this because you are going to think
this crazy guy is fixated on "residence address." But, you know, we went through all
that, we had discussion on "residence address," the League of Women Voters supported
taking out that language in the other matters, but here in Section 15- 5(b)(4), "On said
petition, each elector signing shall print their name, and their signature and residence
address, all of which shall be reasonably similar to their information on the county
register for County of Hawai`i." When this was discussed before, Commissioner
Kawauchi brought up that maybe a compromise would be this reasonably similar
language for residence address. I think it was agreed to at that meeting that it was
problematic. With a name, it's not so much of a problem, but residence is really the only
certain thing we have here. Especially if everything else is reasonably similar. Again,
that doesn't mean that if you put Kanoelehua Ave. that is not Avenue, of course not. And
if there is no Kanoelehua Street, and you just put Kanoelehua, that is fine with us too.
But then, would this open it up for challenge. What if you mis- spelled the name? Well,
it's reasonably similar, but when we type in our computer, Ka instead of Ke, it's going to
be very difficult for us. So that is our first issue.
Another issue is, I really want to thank the League of Women Voters, and I feel sorry that
I have not communicated with them prior. I had to go out of town for over a week; in
42
fact I returned just today so perhaps if there was more time, we could work on some of
these things.
But, that being said, this is a very long, detailed, proposal and I'm concerned that things
we may not see right now are going to be a problem later. Just for an example, I noticed
just now under the summaries; the committee comes up with the pro language and then it
says any group of citizens, five, can write the con statement. Well, it doesn't really
provide for what if we have multiple groups of people. Who is going to select the five
people to write the opposing section? And what if no one comes forward; then do we just
have a pro section? I think there is a lot of uncertainly. I'm not saying we are against
this in concept, but given the fact that we are at this late stage of the game; first reading
didn't have much discussion, it was just pushed forward. I'm nervous. We strongly
support CA -12. We thought those were good suggestions.
MS. JARMAN: I'm actually disappointed because at the end of the last meeting we
asked you to get together with the League of Women Voters and you have been gone a
week out of a month; and if you knew you were going to be gone, you would have had an
opportunity. And I know Sue Dursin was working on this right away, because she sent
me information. So I'm a little bit upset that we are now out of time, and we specifically
said to you, please work with them right afterwards; and you didn't. That bothers me a
lot that you are coming in at this 11th hour now, and trying to essentially tell us not to
vote for it, and we have no other options.
MR. GOODENOW: I appreciate that, and I do feel remiss for that. However, I do note
that Sue Dursin had to leave town. I could have contacted Marian, but she left town right
when I left town, and I only had it for a couple of days before leaving town. And I might
note, fellow parliamentarian, your comments might have been out of order; just a
suggestion, merits or demerits of the matter before us.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? I have a question for Mr. Hookano.
I can't remember whether or not we did the amendment to replace the language, "persons
who voted" with "valid votes cast."
MR. HOOKANO: I don't believe that amendment has been made yet.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that is in Section 15 -1. I think that is where is would have to
be made.
MR. HOOKANO: I think there are two sections that are affected by that; Section 15 -1(b)
and I do believe I saw that somewhere else.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Was that in Comm. 212?
MR. HOOKANO: It would also be in Section 15- 5(c)(1).
MS. JARMAN: Yes, we amended it last time, but then we didn't vote on it.
43
CHR. HAITSUKA: So the motion to amend passed. That should be changed then to
"valid votes cast" in Section 15 -1(b) and Section 15- 5(c)(1).
MR. HOOKANO: Yes, that is finished; it's in the minutes.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion before we take a roll call vote? Then
are we ready to vote? Ms. Osborne.
MS. OSBORNE: I really want to express that I share Mr. Goodenow's concerns. In just
this last few minutes two things have cropped up that haven't been seen. And nowhere in
our Charter do we have such a cumbersome process. We had previously discussed
leaving that to the Council to clearly articulate process, so I just want to voice my
concern over that.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
MR. NAHALE -A: I have a quick question on our voting options. I know we have yes
and no, but do we have other options?
CHR. HAITSUKA: Can you abstain?
MR. HOOKANO: No.
MR. NAHALE -A: I have concerns that have been brought up. It is really challenging to
me because of all the work that was done on this. For me, voting against this would be
on the issue I've been saying from meeting #1, which is that I think this level of detail is
better served in the Code, and not in the Charter. But it is challenging for me because I
think it is a good body of work, and I respect the work and the perspective. But I am
going to stick with my philosophy.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion?
The motion to approve CA -16 (Draft 2)
as amended at second reading failed
due to the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Jarman,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: Commissioners Honma,
Kealoha, Nahale -a and Osborne.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
Back to CA -12 Draft 3
..
CHR. HAITSUKA: So, let's do CA -12 now. CA -12 (Draft3) we have a pending motion
to approve. Is there any further discussion on CA -12? Mr. Shumway.
MR. SHUMWAY: I just have a question. I do also appreciate all the work the League
did on CA -16. Is there any way - -this is an open ended question - -in CA -12 to refer to
something like that. It wouldn't be in the Charter, it wouldn't be enshrined for ten years.
But to make use of that work and to refer to that process and put it in CA -12? I don't
have a suggestion at this point; it's really an open ended question for more experienced
people.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you saying to leave some
kind of ability to - --
MR. SHUMWAY: Can we amend CA -12 to somehow refer to that process; incorporate
that process, not delineated in such detail, but some way to refer to a process that should
be followed? Maybe there isn't a way to do this. I'm kind of asking Casey or Levi if
they have any thoughts on that.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I have a thought. I think we initially had it that way; CA -16 was a
very general proposed amendment at one time, where we would just follow the initiative
and referendum and then the League of Women Voters went in and actually - - -I don't
know if you can just wholesale adopt the procedures. I think if you had to do it again,
you would have to do it the way they did it. That is my opinion. There area lot of
consequences and everything has to work together. Mr. Clerk.
MR. GOODENOW: Not on that subject. I was a little confused regarding the "valid
votes cast." That was adopted replacing the "registered voters." But there is a little
grammatical error. It doesn't quite fit there. If you could change it to say, "...valid votes
cast in..." That is my only comment; otherwise we are in support of CA -12.
Mr. Nahale -a moved to add the word "in"
after "valid votes cast," in Section 15 -1(b)
of CA -12 (Draft 3). Seconded by
Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following
vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion as to CA -12 (Draft3)? Let's take a
roll call vote.
45
The motion to approve CA -12 (Draft 3)
as amended at second reading was carried
by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I would just like to congratulate the Commission on
getting through all of their proposals at this time.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Let's move on to unfinished 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,
Amended and held over February 12, 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.
and;
COMM. 136.2:
Memo from Commission Secretary, Karen Eoff, dated March 2, 2010 regarding Proposed
Charter Amendments that passed 2nd reading at the February 12, 2010 meeting that may be
discussed as part of Comm. 136. CA -7 Draft 2: Recall Procedure; CA -9 Draft 2: Special
Meeting Notice Requirement; CA-23: Electronic Notice with Newspaper Publications; CA-
26 Draft 2: Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources; CA -29: Prosecuting Attorney
Powers; and CA -36 Draft 2: "Housekeeping" Amendments.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Would the consolidation go to the Council too, or would it be just on
the ballot?
MR. HOOKANO: It would be shown in the report to the Council on which proposals
were combined, and also it would probably show up on the ballot the same way.
CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we discussed that it would create a whole new number if say,
CA -2, CA -3 and CA -36 were combined; it would have a new number. Is that how it would
work?
MR. HOOKANO: I think at that point, it would be ballot question #1, or ballot question,
whatever sequence it is.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Communication 136?
MS. JARMAN: Can I ask Pat Nakamoto a question? The suggestion is that we take
some of the amendments that we have approved and consolidate them into single ballot
questions. For instance, I think the first one is to take CA -2, CA -3 and CA -36; CA -2
moves Data Systems to Article VI and changes the names, CA -3 moves the Fire
Department, and I don't know what CA -36 does.
MR. HOOKANO: CA -36 was the "Housekeeping" amendment to correct the formatting
and spelling errors in the Charter.
MS. JARMAN: Does that present any problems from Elections side, or is that not a
problem?
MS. NAKAMOTO: This is only my opinion. I think that the more questions that you
can consolidate would probably work out better as far as ballot format and the amount of
questions we are going to be placing on the ballot.
MS. JARMAN: Okay, but then if we were to combine three into one, what if someone
were in favor of, let's say, CA -2 and not CA -3, what would the result be? They would
have to vote "yes" or "no" on them as a combined package, right?
MS. NAKAMOTO: Right.
MS. JARMAN: That concerns me a little bit because we passed them independently.
I'm not sure I would be in favor of that.
MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, my memo to the Commission offered
suggestions on ways to do it; my communication doesn't say that these are going to be
the combinations for the charter amendments. Really, it is up to the Commission, at this
47
point in time, to determine if they want to combine any; and how they would do so based
on their experience of all the charter amendments.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a.
MR. NAHALE -A: Just for clarification; so this communication - -we are going to take
that action today - -and this communication is the vehicle to do so?
MR. HOOKANO: That is correct.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is it possible to defer until after it comes back from the Council?
MR. HOOKANO: I don't see why not.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have to submit a ballot question to the Council?
MR. HOOKANO: No. You just have to submit a report to the Council of what types of
amendments the Commission is putting forward. I didn't see any requirement that it be
the actual final ballot question; the pros and cons, or anything like that. It was just a
report to the County Council.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway.
MR. SHUMWAY: If we do combine amendments, we would have to keep all the
language in tact, right? We cannot change the language to make one solid question,
right?
MR. HOOKANO: That is correct. At this point, the only way you could change the
language is through a motion for reconsideration of amendments. At this point
everything is pretty final. I would actually like to inform the Commission that, with the
Commission's directive, I would put together the report for the Commission to the
County Council, and submit it to the Commission for approval. At that point, as I go
through the amendments, if I spot anything that stands out to me, I will be sure to bring it
to the Commission's attention at that time.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Mr. Nahale -a.
MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, to be honest with you, it's hard for me to talk about the
combinations today because we have been focused so much on the proposals
independently. I prefer that we defer; or I would need a' /z hour break to take a breath
and re -look at them again. I think it is actually a much more challenging conversation, so
I'm not really ready at this point.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you want to make a motion?
Mr. Nahale -a moved to postpone consideration
of Comm. 136, 136.1 and 136.2 to the next
meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and
carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
REPORTS
CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Reports. We have no reports.
REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no referrals for executive session.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHR. HAITSUKA: Our next meeting is scheduled for Friday, April 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.
in Hilo. Mr. Nahale -a.
MR. NAHALE-A: I have a quick announcement. It is my hope that the newspaper
would report that the Charter Commission created a safety net for open space land fund,
versus what has been said; that we cut it.
CHR. HAITSUKA: If you want to assist with preparation of the media release - --
MR. NAHALE -A: I would, actually.
MR. HOOKANO: The reporters left already, so that might not show up.
MR. NAHALE -A: It will be in the minutes.
CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion about the next meeting, April 9, 2010?
MS. JARMAN: It's good for me.
i •
MR. SHUMWAY: I'm fine with that too.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The next item on the agenda is adjournment.
ADJOURNMENT
CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
There being no further business, at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Kealoha moved to adjourn the meeting.
Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman,
Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne,
Shumway and Chair Haitsuka.
Noes: None.
Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui,
Kawauchi and Unger.
CHR. HAITSUKA: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen Eoff, Secretary
Approved:
Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair
Hawaii County Charter Commission
50