Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2010-08-13.tifS 2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION 18th Session Friday, August 13, 2010 County Council Chambers 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon, today is Friday, August 13, 2010, the time is approximately 1:50 p.m. and I call this meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. This meeting is being held in the chambers of the Hawaii County Council located at 25 Aupuni Street in Hilo. Appearing by videoconference from the Hawaii County Council Office on Hanama Place in Kona is myself and Commissioner Joseph Kealoha. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chairman (Kona videoconference) Ms. Casey Jarman, Commissioner Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner (Kona videoconference) Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner Excused: Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chairman Ms. Daphne Honma, Commissioner Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner Also Present: Mr. Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk Ms. Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Manager Ms. Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ms. Nora Avenue, Council Committees Ms. Maim Hanano, Council Aide (Waimea videoconference) Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary (Kona videoconference) STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS DEANNASAKO (At this time Deanna Sako, Deputy Director, Finance Department, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. SAKO: You have several documents today on the various education processes and the charter ballot wording. I am referring to the one in the PowerPoint presentation, but when I looked at the wording, they were all very similar. My first concern is not understanding how the whole process works perhaps; but in the ballot language we seem to have left out the words, "public access" before the "open space and natural resources preservation fund." I wouldn't want there to be a technicality at the end, because we go very specifically when we name the fund, so in the charter amendment language the title is actually, "Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund, so in (1) on the proposed ballot amendment for CA -15, I guess if you could perhaps change that to, "establish a public access, open space, and natural resources preservation fund." Also, in (2) of the proposed language, it starts out with, "appropriating additional revenue," and this is not a fund that we actually appropriate, or get a budget from. It is available at any time for spending, based on the PONC's (Public Access, Open Space, Natural Resources Commission's) priorities. Maybe a better word might be, "allowing" additional revenues, because unless we actually get a grant, there would be nothing else to include. So a suggestion would be to change, "appropriating" to "allowing." Under (3) where it talks about specifying that this fund shall be used solely to purchase or otherwise acquire lands or property entitlements in the county for public outdoor recreation and education, that could be misleading. If you just read those words, it almost sounds like we want outdoor pools, or hunting areas, or something; and really in the charter amendment language it is very specific in terms of including "... access to beaches and mountains, preservation of historic or culturally important land areas and sites, protection of natural resources, significant habitat or ecosystems including buffer zones, preservation of forests, beaches, coastal areas, natural beauty and agricultural lands and protection of water shed lands to preserve water quality and water supply." I just wouldn't want the voters to be misled as to what outdoor recreation might include. Then, in terms of the language being presented, I guess on the educational part where the voters get to learn more about the requirements, I'm not sure in terms of if it's really necessary to include the moratorium language in there. I realize that it did happen, but I would think the Charter Commission would want to be neutral and just present the facts to the voters. In addition, either in the ballot language or in the narrative portion, somehow explaining more what outdoor recreation and education actually includes. That's all I have, thank you. MS. JARMAN: Excuse me, Deanna, will you be here for awhile? 2 MS. SAKO: I can stay. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Sako. Do we have anyone else in Hilo to testify today? MS. AVENUE: There are no other testifiers Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Do we have anybody in Waimea? MS. HANANO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, we do not have any testifiers here. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. That concludes the statements from the public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHR. HAITSUKA: July 23, 2010 Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2010, meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Before we move on to voting, I just wanted to note that you may have noticed that the minutes for the July 23, 2010 meeting are not verbatim like we usually have them. We experienced some technical difficulties at the last meeting where the recording equipment did not function properly. So the format of the minutes that we are using for the July 23, 2010 meeting is a summary. Fortunately for us, our secretary took good notes and she was able to piece together the minutes, and I want to thank her for doing a good job as usual. Is there any further discussion on the minutes from the last meeting> The motion to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2010 meeting was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. 3 COMMUNICATIONS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Communications. We don't have any new communications. NEW BUSINESS CHR. HAITSUKA: We don't have any New Business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CHR. HAITSUKA: For Unfinished Business we have: COMM. 256.1: REPORT FROM THE AD -HOC COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION From Ad -Hoc Committee Chair, Casey Jarman, transmitting the findings and the report of the Ad -Hoc Committee on Education. (Discussion on Comm. 256.1 was postponed July 23, 2010.) and; COMM. 256.2: DISCUSSION ON LWV PROPOSED SUMMARY LANGUAGE From Ad -Hoc Committee Chair, Casey Jarman, dated August 4, 2010, transmitting a request to place on the agenda a Discussion of the League of Women Voters Proposed Ballot Summary Language. and; COMM. 256.3: DISCUSSION ON POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH From Karen Eoff, Commission Secretary, dated August 4, 2010, requesting to place on the agenda a Discussion of a PowerPoint Presentation for Educational Outreach. CHR. HAITSUKA: We also have: COMM. 258: PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTIONS FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated June 16, 2010, transmitting proposed ballot language for the charter commission's proposed amendments. (Discussion on Comm. 258 was postponed July 23, 2010.) CHR. HAITSUKA: We already have outstanding motions to file Communications 256.1 and 258. Ms. Jarman, just a point of order, do we need a motion to file Communications 256.2 and 256.3 so we can discuss them? 12 MS. JARMAN: I think that we need to keep Communication 256.1 and 256.2 - -- Actually, I think we need to keep them all alive at this point. It's kind of strange because they all relate to each other and we need to talk about them all at the same time. But, we have to take separate votes on them for filing. I'm wondering if we could take back the motions to file these other two, and then have a motion to file all four of them. We'll have all of our discussion and then at the end of the discussion we can file them. Otherwise we have to take them one at a time. So maybe move to amend to include the others in the motion to file. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to amend? Mr. Nahale -a moved to amend the motion to file Communications 256.1 and 258 to include Communications 256.2 and 256.3. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, do we also need to include Communication 256.4? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, that one is not on the agenda, so we don't have to. It is just additional information that goes with the agenda items. CHR. HAITSUKA: And in addition to Communication 256.4, we also have Communications 256.5, 256.6, 256.7, 256.8, 256.9 and 256.10. They are all not on the agenda, so we don't have to move at this time to file those. Ms. Jarman, on behalf of the Educational Committee, is there a particular order that you wanted to address the Communications that we have before us right now? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, we thought that we would have different committee members present the broader educational proposal, and then we could through each individual proposed ballot language and the summary at the end. Mr. Nahale -a will do the overview of the big picture of the types of educational program we were thinking of. MR. NAHALE -A: The proposal is to first and foremost to produce an informational brochure as has been put out in the past which will articulate each ballot measure and give a synopsis of it. Those brochures will be available at the County building and also other select locations around the island. Also, information will be posted on line. We would like to simultaneously run an ad campaign. The concept is both newspaper and radio and possibly public access television which would be focused on Mr. Kaulukukui's proposal from the last meeting explaining what the Charter is and encouraging folks to participate and to become informed by seeking out the information that is being created in the brochure. Parallel to that we would like to run a contest with island youth groups, schools or school groups. There would be basically three categories of the contest; a newspaper ad, a radio ad and a television ad for public access television. There would be a prize for each of those categories. We may then use those ads in our advertising campaign. Then, finally, the effort by commission 5 members to go out to the public to be at Rotary meetings, community association meetings and other radio shows or public access shows. Did I cover everything? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, that was the overview; would you like some more specifics? CHR. HAITSUKA: I had some questions about the ad campaign. I don't know what mechanism or process the committee is proposing to put that into effect and timelines and that kind of thing; is there a budget? MS. JARMAN: Scott will start talking about the brochure and then he will talk also about the PSA campaign. MR. UNGER: I have contacted Randy at the Department of Research and Development. I have asked him if he would be willing to work with us to actually put the brochure together. He is agreeable to that. Basically, we provide him the content, he could add graphics, put it into a brochure format. It will come out of our budget, but, essentially the printing will be done by them. So that is how the brochure itself will come to be. That's all I was going to comment on right now. CHR. HAITSUKA: Did he give you any idea as far as how long it would take, timeframe or costs? MR. UNGER: Costs, not yet. We are still formulating that. I think Todd has volunteered to work with them as far as the wording and content. Once we get this brochure complete, and Todd fine tunes it with Randy, I think at that point he doesn't anticipate it taking that long. Basically, he said he has people that can work on it right away. Cost is strictly the printing. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. MS. JARMAN: Did you have a question about the contest? CHR. HAITSUKA: I thought somebody was going to address the PSA. MS. JARMAN: Scott will address the PSA. MR. UNGER: Are you talking about the contest? Me and Alapaki have been sort of brainstorming about this. We have the format down pretty well. Essentially, we are going to come up with some basic rules for this contest, and we are going to leave it up to the individual schools as to how they want to participate. They could either come up with a radio ad or a TV ad, or they can come up with a newspaper ad. We have just thrown some figures out there as far as the winners would get; we were thinking of offering $1,000 for the top radio ad, TV ad and newspaper ad. We were contemplating doing a second place prize as well of $500 just to get the interest out there, get them motivated. Todd had talked about contacting somebody up at U.H. to work with us and oversee the outreach program to the different schools. I don't know if he has had time to talk to that person or not, but in general that is what we are trying to do. 0 MR. SHUMWAY: I did email Mr. Todd Belt. He is a political science professor at U.H. Hilo. I have asked him to contemplate bringing a student in perhaps to work on this as a class project, to help oversee it. I don't have an answer from him yet, and it's a really busy time at U.H. Hilo because orientation starts this coming week. I am hoping to get an answer from him within a week or two and as soon as I do I will be contacting you guys. MR. NAHALE -A: If I could also add, Mr. Goodenow has also stated they could dedicate staff and resources to help with the coordination effort. I still think it would be great if we got an intern, but it will help if the County staff could field calls and things like that. MS. OSBORNE: Is it $1,000 each, or $1,000 total prize money? MR. NAHALE -A: Each. If I could just add to that, I think one of the points for us about the PSA's is that we anticipate it being its own story. So we would hope that the papers would cover it, which would give us some free charter advertising, but also in those communities, those parents and teachers will get involved and we are hoping it will spur some conversations about the charter and what it is. MR. UNGER: I actually did get some costs too. I did get a return phone call from one of the big radio stations. They have four different stations out there. She gave me a ballpark figure that for a weeks worth of advertisements on four radio stations, prime spots, the most it would cost us would be bout $2,000 a week. It is flexible, anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Obviously $2,000 would be the prime radio spots on all four stations. If we wanted to do it for two weeks, then it would be $4,000 maximum. Alapaki did go check our budget, and apparently we have somewhere around $50,000 in there. We need to fine tune it. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, for expediency sake, because a lot of the issue for us now is timing. We need to get these proposals moving. I'm not sure what the right proposal is. If our expenditures have to be authorized by the county clerk, do we have the authority via this report to lets say authorize these advertising expenses up to a certain amount, not to exceed our budget; or we could cap it at a certain amount less than the $50,000. It would help us to move things. CHR. HAITSUKA: I had a question whether or not we have the ability to use the funds allocated to us for the contest. Would there be any legal impediments or other concerns? Maybe Ms. Self could answer that. I know it's kind of an unusual question. MS. SELF: Hi, Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel. At first, I had the same concerns; that's why I spoke with Deanna Sako of the finance department. I didn't know how your budget was set up, but it doesn't specify exactly what the money can be spent on, as long as it's within the public purpose. I was worried about the public purpose, but there is nothing that gives any real specifics about what it can be spent on. Since there is a public purpose, and part of your job is to get the word out about the charter amendments, I don't think there is a problem. I also spoke with the county clerk, who would have to approve the expenditures. He has indicated that he would approve those types of expenditures. 7 CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. I wasn't aware that the county clerk needed to approve our expenditures. I don't know where that information comes from. Is the county clerk there today? MS. JARMAN: He'll be right here. He is in another meeting and he said that if we have a question - -- Deanna Sako is here, and she said she can help. MS. SAKO: I can help a little bit. Giving out prize money is generally not how County funds are spent. So, we would consider it an exception. Generally the director of finance would approve those exceptions, except when those expenditures are made from the council or the county clerk's budget, which is usually governed by the council chair. So, because it just so happens that the Charter Commission's budget falls under the council and the county clerk's section of the budget, we would yield to their decision for that. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, excuse me, Ms. Sako; I'm trying to understand what you just said. That means we would need the county clerk's approval to spend that money? MS. SAKO: Yes, finance would yield to whatever Mr. Goodenow says. MR. GOODENOW: I don't know about all of the technicalities, I don't think we need to go there. I certainly would approve anything that was submitted, and we are glad to help. We also have staff, it is tight, we have no vacancies, but we'll do all we can to assist you in your mission. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow, I have a question. It has just come to my attention that we need you to approve expenditures. I don't know if there is a limit. The reason why I ask is because I think that previously they have been running it by me, and I want to make sure that I'm not violating any protocol. MR. GOODENOW: I'm really surprised to learn that. I guess maybe the way the budget is structured, the mechanism - -- MS. SAKO: I didn't mean to say that all expenditures need to be approved by the county clerk's office. It would just be the exceptions. Prize money is not typically a typical expenditure of county funds, so it's only like that type of unusual situations that we would request the county clerk to approve. MR. GOODENOW: In regards to the Charter Commission; I see myself as your servant, as I would the Council. We are here to assist you, and if you felt that it was appropriate, I certainly will approve it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. Mr. Nahale -a; getting back to your discussion. You wanted to make a motion? 0 MR. NAHALE -A: Yes, I think the educational committee is proposing some activities to undergo already. The advertising process, I guess it does have to go out to procurement. Because we do that all the time, I guess they have a streamlined process by which they submit these forms to the paper and then they have some rules. I'm not exactly sure what the right motion is, but if there is someway for us to approve, let's say, up to $30,000 of expenses for these education efforts, then we could authorize you to approve those, then it would be nice to be able to start doing work between now and the next meeting. Mr. Nahale -a moved to approve up to $30,000 of Commission expenses with Chair approval on the following educational expenses: newspaper advertising, radio advertising, public access television, printing of a brochure, prize money for the PSA contest with the student groups and any other related costs. Seconded by Ms. Jarman CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? So, you are asking for a ceiling of $30,000? MR. NAHALE -A: I'm just doing rough estimates. You heard from Mr. Unger, if radio ads were one week, it would be $2,000 and two weeks would be $4,000; that is one factor. Newspaper ads are a little bit more expensive, running individually on both sides of the island. The printing costs - - -I'm saying $30,000 just because we have $50,000 and if we were to go over that amount it would force the committee to come back and justify the expenditures. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any other discussion? I have a question. Essentially, once we approve this motion, the educational committee is going to go out and start taking action on it's proposed plan for the educational campaign; operate and do what needs to be done behind the scenes to initiate the media program, the PSA program, get the pamphlet printed, is that correct? MR. NAHALE -A: Yes, I'm asking that the educational committee be empowered to do that. MR. GOODENOW: I don't know what your agenda looks like, I don't have your agenda in front of me. There may be a Sunshine Law issue. It may need to be agendized, possibly not. Maybe that is an issue the attorney should address. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, may we have just a few minutes to consult? CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright. MR. NAHALE -A: Hello, Mr. Chair, we are ready when you are. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. D MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, I would like to withdraw my motion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright. MS. JARMAN: You just need to ask if anybody objects. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any objections to the withdrawal of the motion? There are no objections; the motion is withdrawn. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, may I make a motion? CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright; go ahead. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the Ad —Hoc Committee report and recommendations (with the exception of Communication 256.4) and authorize the Chair to work with Commission members to implement it. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a. MS. JARMAN: The reason we are doing it that way is that basically after today the Education Committee will no longer exist because you will have accepted our report. Our charge was to come up with recommendations; so once we come up with the recommendations, it ends. But because we have already approved what the follow up will be for the education, and because we have no more business in terms of the amendments themselves, we don't have a Sunshine Law problem with going out and pursuing the educational campaign. The budget is in place, so we don't have to mention anything about how much money will be involved. CHR. HAITSUKA: When you say Chair, you mean me, not you? MS. JARMAN: Correct, because there is no more Education Committee after today. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, under your motion, the former members of your committee will work with me to implement the recommendations in the report. Is that the thinking? MS. JARMAN: Correct, and you can actually have all members work with you in implementing the report because presumably other members will go out and make presentations etcetera. But, we need somebody to coordinate it. The County Clerk has also graciously volunteered to work with us and help coordinate. MS. SELF: Mr. Chair, this is Amy Self I just want to make it clear that it means that for this particular issue that the full Commission will not be able to vote. This cannot come up as board business ever again before the Commission. I am assuming that the Commission 10 will already have voted on the amendments, the language for the ballot and everything, and you will not be voting on anything else, right? MS. JARMAN: That is going to happen next. So we won't be voting on anything after that. MS. SELF: Okay, as long as it is something that will come up to you for deliberation or a vote, then it would be a Sunshine Law violation if you did go out and discuss with more than two members. So, we are saying that it is all going to be voted on; everything is finished, and then you will go out and explain it to the community. Is that correct? MS. JARMAN: That's correct; because we cannot do our educational campaign until we have made our final decisions on those two things. MS. SELF: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. MR. GOODENOW: I see that really analogous to the situation where the Council may pass something, say a smoking ban; but then afterwards they go out and promote a "don't smoke in the parks," and go out and work on buying signs to post. I think that is appropriate. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, is there any further discussion? We are ready to vote. The motion was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to the discussion of the proposed ballot questions. I believe that is covered by Communication 258. First I want to note that we have Sue Dursin here from the League of Women Voters and on behalf of the Commission, I would like to thank her and the people on her committee; Michael Rohr, Donna Oba, and Marian Wilkens, I believe. They did a fine job and we really appreciate it. We want to thank you for all of your time and your efforts. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Committee, I just want to let everybody know that Sue Dursin attended our last committee meeting, as well, and assisted us in going through the language to put in the brochure. We also want to thank her for spending that extra time with us too. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Sue. I believe that we were going to go through Communication 256.4. Ms. Jarman is that what was proposed? 11 MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we take Communication 258 and Communication 256.4 together, because Communication 258 has the proposed ballot language that Mr. Hookano did; so let's say we voted in favor of the proposed ballot language for CA -1, then we could vote on the description; and so we would be voting on the ballot language and then on the description and just go one by one, if that is okay with everybody. CHR. HAITSUKA: So you are proposing to vote on each and every proposed amendment as we go through them one by one. MS. JARMAN: Yes, that is what I am proposing we do. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, we would do a motion, have it seconded, then do the discussion then finish up with the vote, is that what you are thinking? MS. JARMAN: What I'm thinking is that we start with CA -1, and somebody makes a motion to approve the ballot language, which would be Levi's ballot language. It would get seconded, and then we would discuss that. Once that's approved, somebody makes a motion to approve the Education Committee language that was in Communication 256.4, we have a second, then we work on that to make sure everybody is happy with it, then we vote on that, then go to the next amendment. That is how I'm proposing to do it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion or suggestions on the method in which we are going to move forward on these proposed ballot questions? CA -1 RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's start off with CA -1 in Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed language for CA -1 in Communication 258? Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -1 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, we are trying to get a copy of the actual language of our amendment, so we can take a quick look. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, do you have a copy of our initial CA -1? CHR. HAITSUKA: I do. MS. JARMAN: Does it say anything about public works; the title of the director? 12 CHR. HAITSUKA: It took me a while to figure out what the problem was. What happened was, in Article VIII, relating to the department of water supply, in Section 8 -2, it talks about the manager of the department of water supply. It also mentions some of the other department heads, such as the planning director. But, for public works it calls the director by the old name, the "chief engineer." When you look under Chapter VII, the department of public works; in there it says that the department is actually headed by a director, not a chief engineer. I think that was just a carry over. I believe the director might have been called a chief engineer at one time. So we are just kind of cleaning that up to be consistent between Article VIII, Section 8 -2 and Chapter VII. We received Communication 256.7, which is from Ron Takahashi, dated yesterday, August 12, 2010. He was pointing out that the director of public works does have to be a licensed engineer. We had incorrectly stated in the summary, that the director doesn't have to be a licensed engineer, but actually the proposed amendment doesn't relate to the qualifications, it is just making the two different sections of the charter consistent. MS. JARMAN: Okay, I think we are ready to go over here. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on the proposed ballot language for CA -1? Let's take a vote. The motion was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at the related commentary contained in Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -1. Here we have proposed commentary that was drafted by the League of Women Voters and also one that was drafted by the Educational Committee. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I think we can take out the first sentence in (2), and just say, (2) "Currently Article VIII (Department of Water Supply) mistakenly calls the director of public works the "chief engineer." This proposal will correct the error." So if we take out that first sentence, I think we are okay. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that would work. 13 MS. JARMAN: The first sentence after (2) "The head of public works does not have to be an engineer and currently is given the title "director of public works" will be deleted. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -1 as stated in Communication 256.4 with the exception of deleting the first sentence after (2). Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -2 RELATING TO DATA SYSTEMS CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to CA -2, the proposed ballot language contained in Communication 258. Mr. Unger moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -2 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. 14 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -2. We have proposed summary language by the League of Women Voters and the Education Committee. Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -2 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -3 RELATING TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258. Do I have a motion for CA -3? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -3 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. 15 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -3, the proposed summary language provided by the League of Women Voters and the Education Committee. Mr. Unger moved to adopt the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -3 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have one comment. I noticed that in the language it mentions the fire department commission. Actually, the charter refers to a fire commission. So I would recommend taking out the word "department" from the fire commission, so it accurately reflects how it is referenced in the charter. Chair Haitsuka moved to amend the motion to approve the Education Committee's summary language for CA -3 by deleting the word "department" from the reference to the fire commission. The first sentence would read "...the fire commission was created...." Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: That motion carries, now back to the main motion. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -3 as stated in Communication 256.4 and amended to delete the word "department" was carried by the following vote: 16 Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -4 RELATING TO CIVIL SERVICE LAWS CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258. Do I have a motion to approve the ballot language for CA -4? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -4 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -4 Mr. Shumway moved to approve the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -4 as stated in Communication 256.4 Seconded by Ms. Osborne. 17 CHR. HAITSUKA: I have a comment to that. It says, "Civil Service laws are governed by state law." It doesn't seem to me that it should be written that way. I think it should say something like, "Civil Service employment is governed by both state and county law." Al don't know if that is accurate but, I think saying that civil service laws are governed by state laws is not a correct to state that a law is governed by another law. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, maybe we should ask Mike Ben, who made the initial proposal to help us with this. He wanted us to change this because the state laws are laws that the county has to follow. The county cannot do something that is not consistent with the state civil service laws. We don't have separate county civil service laws. That was our understanding, so that is why we drafted it that way. We could say, "Civil Service employment is governed by state law." But, we thought that the county doesn't have the authority to change state civil service law. That is why he wanted to make those changes. Corporation Counsel did send this out to the department heads and there was nothing written back, so we are assuming we are correct. CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't have a problem with doing it that way, either saying, "Civil Service is governed by state law," or "Civil Service is governed by state law." It was just the use of law in there doesn't make sense to me in the context in which it is used. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, we could substitute that first sentence with the sentence in the Commission's summary above which says, "State law is controlling when it comes to civil service laws." Do you like that better? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, in fact our secretary just told me the exact same thing. You seem to be thinking on the same wave length. MS. JARMAN: We can thank Amy Self for that recommendation. Chair Haitsuka moved to amend the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -4 as stated in Communication 256.4 by changing the first sentence to read, "State law is controlling when it comes to civil service laws." Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. IN CHR. HAITSUKA: Now, back to the main, underlying motion. The motion to approve the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -4 as amended was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -5 RELATING TO TERMS OF MERIT APPEALS BOARD MEMBERSHIP CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258 with respect to CA -5. Do I have a motion to approve the ballot language for CA -5? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -5 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. 19 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to the proposed summary language for CA -5. We have a proposed summary that was drafted by the League of Women Voters. Do I have a motion to adopt this language? Ms. Jarman moved to approve the Education Committee's proposed summary language for CA -5 as stated in Communication 256.4 Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -6 RELATING TO REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS SERVING UNDER COMMISSIONS CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -6? Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -6 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: I just noticed something. We might be changing the name of the head of the department of water supply. So, I guess at some point in time they will have to go back and amend this provision to change the name, if the voters approve CA -1. That is just an observation. We have it identified as the "manager" of the department of water supply, and CA -1 proposes to change that title to the "manager chief engineer." I don't think this is something that can be addressed until CA -1 is adopted. Is there any further discussion? 20 The motion to approve the ballot language for CA -6 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 and let's look at the language proposed by the League of Women Voters for CA -6. Do I have a motion? Ms. Osborne moved to approve the League of Women Voters proposed summary language for CA -6 as stated in Communication 256.4 Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? I have a comment. That last line; I know that it came out of the version that was prepared by Mr. Hookano. It states that the police chief, serving under the police commission is already covered by these requirements. I am not so sure that we need that, because the proposed amendment itself doesn't discuss it, I don't know if it's going to be confusing. I'm not sure we need that language in there. The other comment I had was that in the 3rd sentence it says, "A public statement for the reasons for removal must be made, and the affected director must be allowed to respond at a commission hearing" I thought that might be missing some language. I thought it should say, "...must be allowed the opportunity to respond at a commission hearing." It seems like it's missing that language. MR. UNGER: Chairman Ed, can you hear me? I'm in favor of including the word, "opportunity" in there. When the Educational Committee went through the rational, the language and the explanations for these, one of the things we were adamant about was explaining the reasons why these things are on the ballot. I think because the police chief is already covered, and these other department heads are not, that is the reason for the ballot 21 question in the first place, as far as a clarification. That's how I am reading that and why we thought we should leave it in there. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think it would be okay if that last part of the sentence from the summary would be included too. Where it says, "... and this proposal would make the other provisions consistent with the police practice." I would suggest the last sentence could read, "The police chief, serving under the police commission, is already covered by these requirements, and this proposal would make the other provisions consistent with this practice." That, to me, would tie that last sentence in. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, we could just swap the last sentence of the summary that Mr. Hookano prepared with the one that was written by the League of Women Voters. But take out, "Under the 2008 edition of the charter." We would start with "Currently the police chief is...." MS. JARMAN: Somebody has to make a motion to amend. Mr. Shumway moved to amend the League of Women Voters proposed summary language for CA -6 as stated in Communication 256.4 by deleting the last sentence and replacing it with language to read, "Currently the chief of police is already afforded these protections, and this proposal would make the other provisions consistent with the police practice." And also amend the third sentence to include the words, "the opportunity" after the word, "allowed." Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we are on the underlying (main) motion, is there any further discussion? If not, let's vote. The motion to approve the summary language proposed by the League of Women Voters for CA -6 as stated in Communication 258 and as amended was carried by the following vote: 22 Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -7 RELATING TO RECALL CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -7? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I think there is something left out in Mr. Hookano's proposed ballot language for CA -7. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, that is what I understand. Do we need to first adopt the current version and then move to amend? Is that how the procedure should go? MS. JARMAN: I wanted to ask a question before making a motion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, go ahead MS. JARMAN: On number (3), he says, "require signers of a recall petition..." and then he doesn't finish it. I think he means to add the month and day of their birth. I'm looking at it and I think he also meant to add the last four digits of the social security number. MR. GOODENOW: Actually, I think there are some other issues there. However, your question is - - -Has there been a motion to approve at this point? MS. JARMAN: No, I'm asking whether everybody thinks there is something left out. 23 MR GOODENOW: I think you have to start with a motion to approve for discussion purposes. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -7 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: On this discussion, yes, Ms. Jarman, I think something is missing. MR. GOODENOW: If I may. I'm sorry, when I saw the communication I thought it was the language for the brochure, and I thought is was going to be the commission's suggestion that would be discussed, not what is listed here. I thought that was for informational purposes. But just now I looked at it and this is how I believe it should read. "Shall the charter of the County of Hawaii be amended to (1) change the number of signatures required to recall an official elected at -large or by voters of the entire county to twenty -five percent of the total valid votes cast for office subject to the recall petition in the last election;" That is directly lifted from your last amended version. Then (2) would read, " (2) change the number of signatures required to recall district council members to twenty -five percent of the total valid votes cast in the district in the last general election;" I'm sorry, that's not correct, let me get my notes. As you will recall, Mr. Hookano spelled out the amendment in his communication which was adopted. So it would be, "valid votes for the district office subject to the recall petition in the last election." Then "(3) require signers of a recall petition, to also provide the month and day of their birth date and the last four digits of their social security number." Then "(4) provides for more time for the gathering of signatures; and (5) gives the clerk an additional five days to verify a petition." I would feel more comfortable if you would let me look at the CA -, Draft 2. I only went back to the last version. I didn't know I would be commenting on this. If you could postpone this part and let me verify the different drafts. Ms. Jarman moved to postpone the discussion on the proposed ballot language for CA -7 until after all other proposals have been voted on. seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow, can you take a look, and then write down your proposed language to revise the ballot question for CA -7? 24 MR. GOODENOW: Yes, I will. I'll prepare it right now. If you wouldn't mind, CA -12 is much easier, but if I'm not back, would you postpone that too? CHR. HAITSUKA: So, why don't we also skip the discussion on CA -7 in Communication 256.4 until we resolve the language in the proposed ballot question? CA -9 RELATING TO ELECTRONIC POSTING OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICES CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to CA -9 in Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -9? Mr. Kaulukuki moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -9 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4, with respect to CA -9. We have some proposed language from the League of Women Voters. Do I have a motion to adopt the language proposed by the League of Women Voters? Ms. Osborne moved to approve the League of Women Voters proposed summary language for CA -9 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Nahale -a. 25 CA -10 RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to CA -10 in Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -10? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -10 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Nahale -a. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4, with respect to CA -10. We have some proposed language from the League of Women Voters and from the Educational Committee. Do I have a motion? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -10 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: 26 Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Nahale -a CA -11 RELATING TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENAL MANAGEMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to CA -11 in Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -11? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -11 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair, I think there is a missing word. It should say, "...to possess..." and read, "...require the director of the department of environmental management to possess and engineering degree...." I think it's a grammar thing. Mr. Shumway moved to amend the language for the ballot question to read, "Shall the charter of the County of Hawaii be amended to require the director of the department of environmental management to possess an engineering degree or a degree in a related field ?" Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. 27 CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we need to vote on the underlying (main) motion. The motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -11 as stated in Communication 258 and as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4, with respect to CA -11. We have some proposed summary language from the League of Women Voters. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed language for CA -11? Mr. Unger moved to adopt the League of Women Voters proposed summary language as stated in Communication 256.4 for CA -11. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. W CA -12 RELATING TO CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITIONS CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 258 with respect to CA -12. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -12? MS. OSBORNE: Mr. Goodenow requested that we postpone this one while he does the appropriate research and we move on to CA -13. CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct, thank you. CA -13 RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to adopt the ballot language for CA -13 as contained in Communication 258? Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -13 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4. We are looking at the language proposed by the League of Women Voters and also the Educational Committee. Do I have a motion? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -13 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: 29 Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and Kawauchi. CA -15 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPEN SPACE FUND CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 258 with respect to CA -15. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -15? MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, could we take a short break so we could talk to the representative from the finance department about some of the language that she proposed so we can have something clear when we start to talk about CA -15? CHR. HAITSUKA: How much time do you need? MR. SHUMWAY: About 10 minutes? RECESS: At 3:25 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 3:35 p.m. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, Deanna hasn't come back yet, but we thought maybe we could just skip CA -15 and go on. Also, Mr. Unger has had to leave, so he is no longer here. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, we are skipping CA -15. Let's go to CA -17. 30 CA -17 RELATING TO THE REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION MS. JARMAN: Maybe we could skip CA -17 also, since Ken Goodenow had a suggestion for that one. CA -23 RELATING TO PUBLICATION OF NOTICES VIA AN ELECTRONIC MEDIUM CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, so we will just move on to CA -23. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -23 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -23. We have proposed language from the League of Women Voters. Do we have a motion? Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the League of Women Voter's proposed summary language for CA -23 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. 31 CA -26 RELATING TO PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to Communication 258 with respect to CA -26. Do I have am motion to adopt the ballot language for CA -26? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -26 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -26. We have proposed language from the League of Women Voters and from the Educational Committee. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed summary language? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -26 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: 32 Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CA -29 RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258 with respect to CA -29. Do I have a motion to adopt the ballot language for CA -29? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -29 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. 33 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -29. We have proposed language from the League of Women Voters and the Educational Committee. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed summary language for CA -29? Ms. Osborne moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -29 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CA -36 RELATING TO GRAMMAR, SPELLING, AND FORMATTING OF THE CHARTER CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to Communication 258 with respect to CA -36. Do I have a motion to adopt the ballot language for CA -36? Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -36 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. 34 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -36. Ms. Osborne moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -36 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CA -38 RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 258 with respect to CA -38. Do I have a motion to adopt the ballot language for CA -38? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -38 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. 35 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -38. We have language from the League of Women Voters. Ms. Osborne moved to adopt the League of Women Voter's proposed summary language for CA -38 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. Back to CA -7 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go back to CA -7. We received a fax from Mr. Goodenow with some suggested language for CA -7. Do you have copies in Hilo? MR. GOODENOW: They are making them right now, just one more minute. They are being passed out now. CHR. HAITSUKA: This will be Communication 256.11. Mr. Goodenow, do you want to summarize these proposed revisions for us? 36 MR. GOODENOW: Basically, for CA -7, I took the language from the report of the Charter Commission, subsequent to that we had that one amendment. Fortunately, that was clearly in writing in Mr. Hookano's Communication 257. So, just following the current language now; registered voters for, then subsequently valid votes cast in, is changed with valid votes cast for the office subject to the recall petition in the last election. That is straight from the language in the proposed charter. Same with (2). In (3) the signers are required to provide the month and day of their birth and the last four digits of their social security number. That is in addition to what is already required, the name, residence address, signature. I was general here; to provide more time for the gathering of signatures. It actually changes that from 30 days to 120 days in the case of an island wide race and 90 days for a council race. I just put it like that since that was the language used by Mr. Hookano. Then (5) give the county clerk five more days to verify a petition. If any member would like the report, I have it here. I also have the minutes of the June 25, 2010 meeting and Mr. Hookano's MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, has Mr. Goodenow's communication been given a number? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, this one will be 256.11. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -7 as proposed in Communication 256.11. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is the motion to replace the language. We have an outstanding motion to adopt the language for CA -7 as contained in Communication 258. MS. JARMAN: Yes, Mr. Chair, the motion is to replace that with this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: May I ask Mr. Goodenow a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Sure. MS. JARMAN: The only thing that is kind of different, that you left out, and I'm not sure if it needs to be in there, but that the name that shall be reasonable similar to the name as it appears on the general county register. That was highly controversial. Do you think that needs to be in there? MR. GOODENOW: That is correct, the "which shall be reasonably similar," as opposed to just their name. I didn't feel that it really needed to be there, but it would make it less restrictive. But as was it was discussed earlier, that is our current policy. Our current practice is to use reasonable similar. So, I don't know if you would say that is a change, or not. So I did not use it. I note that in some of these other questions, although Mr. Hookano did them, but in my brief review of them, they are summarized in the questions. 37 MS. JARMAN: I kind of felt the same way because it goes more to the clerk's office and election's office than it does to the voters. MR. GOODENOW: Correct. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Let's vote. The motion to amend the ballot language for CA -7 by replacing the language from Communication 258 with the language in Communication 256.11 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: On the underlying (main) motion, s there any further discussion? Let's vote. The motion to approve the ballot language for CA -7 as amended with the language in Communication 256.11 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. W CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -7. We have some proposed summary language. Ms. Osborne moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -7 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Ms. Jarman. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I think we have to make an amendment to make it consistent with the change and the explanation we made. I think the second sentence in the second paragraph should say, "Presently, 20% of all registered voters in the last preceding general election must sign the petition." Sorry, 25% of all registered voters. Is that correct? MR. GODENOW: It's still 25 %, but there is that language, "valid votes cast for the office subject to the recall petition." That language was changed. It also deleted, "general." So I believe "general" has to be deleted in the second paragraph. I also note that this, "Presently, the requirement is 25% of all registered voters in the county or district, depending on the office," that may be ambiguous. Someone might think it's the people registered now, so it's on election day. It's how many people registered for that election. Whereas the exact language of the amendment clearly says it was in the last election. I didn't include this in my written comments because I thought maybe it wasn't important, but I also note that it doesn't include that language about more time to gather the signatures. Finally, there is something else that I didn't put in here, which I just missed. It says, "Furthermore, the county will have more time — 30 days instead of 20 day — to verify signatures. I have it used to by 5 and now it's 10 for the supplemental, and I don't see any other changes; just that change for the supplemental. I don't know how you want to deal with that. MR. SHUMWAY: I would like to jump in now. I was looking at that too, and in the report that we filed, going back to the actual charter, it says, "Within 30 working days from filing, the clerk shall determine whether the petition contains sufficient signatures." And that is not ramseyered, so it seems as if that is what it was before. So it seems like that would be a mistake in our summary, in which case it definitely needs to come out. MR. GOODENOW: I don't know if you would like me to pose an amendment? There are kind of four parts, I wanted to lay them out to you first. The question I have is do you want to put into the summary that, "All papers comprising a recall petition shall be assembled and filed with the county clerk as one instrument within (used to be 30 days) 120 days in the case of recall of an elected official at large and 90 days in the case of recall of a council member." I don't know if you really need that, but if you want it in, that would be inserted. Then the rest of my amendment would be deleting the word, "general" in the second sentence of the second paragraph. And to delete the last, "Furthermore, the county will have more time — 30 days instead of 20 days — to verify signatures." Replace that with what we just put into the ballot language. So it would say, "The county clerk will have five extra days to verify a supplemental petition." 39 MS. OSBORNE: What about the gathering of signatures? MR. GOODENOW: Oh, and right, I don't know if you want to put that in or not, it's your call. But the language does say that instead of 30 days, you have 120 days. You could just put that in as a separate sentence. I'd say the third paragraph in between those two sentences add something like what I had here in (4) for the question. "More time will be provided for the gathering of signatures, 120 days for an elected official at large, and 90 days in the case of a councilmember. I should have put that in writing, I'm sorry I didn't MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, maybe we could just take out the second paragraph. The actual percentage is going to be in the ballot question anyways, and in the last sentence of the first paragraph we say this proposal will lower the number of signatures required on a recall petition. That is basically what it does, so we would just be repeating what we have already said in the ballot question, so maybe just leave that out totally. CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't have a problem with that. MR. SHUMWAY: We could amend the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -7 by deleting the second paragraph and deleting the last sentence of the third paragraph and replacing it with, "In addition, the amendment will provide more time for the gathering of signatures and give the county clerk 5 more days to verify a petition." This just takes the language straight from the proposed language that the county clerk gave us for (4) and (5) in the ballot question. MR. GOODENOW: Maybe you should add, "supplemental" to petition. I just realized that you might want to amend the one I just did, sorry. But it is only for the supplemental petitions, it is still 30 days for a regular. I'm sorry to throw that in the works. So just add the word, "supplemental." Mr. Shumway moved to amend the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -7 by deleting the second paragraph and deleting the last sentence of the third paragraph and replacing it with, "In addition, the amendment will provide more time for the gathering of signatures and give the county clerk 5 more days to verify a supplemental petition." Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. .N CHR. HAITSUKA: We need to vote on the underlying (main) motion. The motion to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -7 as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. Ms. Jarman moved to reconsider the vote on the ballot language for CA -7. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman, in particular what did you want to change? MS. JARMAN: As Mr. Goodenow just mentioned, we made a mistake in (5). It says, "(5) give the county clerk 5 more days to verify a petition." It is to verify a supplemental petition. It didn't change the amount of time the clerk has to verify a petition. CHR. HAITSUKA: So procedurally we move to reconsider a motion, and if the motion is granted, then we do a motion to amend, is that correct? MS. JARMAN: Yes. The motion to reconsider the previous vote on CA -7 carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. 41 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to amend CA -7? Ms. Osborne moved to amend CA -7 to include the word, "supplemental' before the word, "petition" in (5). Seconded by Ms. Shumway and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. Back to CA -12 CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, we are now back to CA -12 in Communication 258. Do I have a motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -12 as contained in Communication 258? Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -12 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a communication from Mr. Goodenow which is numbered Communication 256.12. That is the communication dated August 12, 2010, and it is regarding comments regarding proposed ballot language for CA -12. Mr. Goodenow, do you want to explain your proposed amendment to the language? MR. GOODENOW: For the number of signatures required for a charter amendment, it was, "valid votes cast." But that was subsequently amended on June 25, 2010 to, "total ballots cast," so I put that in there; changed it to "... (1) changes the number of signatures required for a charter amendment petition to 20% of the total ballots cast in the last general election; 42 (2) require signers of a charter amendment petition to also provide the month and day of their birth and the last four digits of their social security number (similar to CA -7, I did not include that part about their name being reasonably similar because it did not seem vital); and (3) give the county clerk additional time to verify such a petition ?" Ms. Jarman moved to replace the ballot language for CA -12 with the language from Communication 256.12. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we have the underlying (main) motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -12 as contained in Communication 258 as amended. The motion to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -12 as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -12. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -12 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. 43 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. JARMAN: I think we could do what we did with the last one and take out the second sentence of the second paragraph. MS. JARMAN: Yes, the second and third sentences. MR. GOODENOW: Maybe, just grammatically, you could merge that with the third paragraph and say, "This amendment would also require petition signers to give...." MS. JARMAN: Merge the second and third paragraphs and add the word, "also" after, "This amendment would..." MR. GOODENOW: "This amendment also would..." Ms. Jarman moved to amend the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -12 by deleting the second and third sentences of the second paragraph, combine the second and third paragraphs, and the in the sentence that says, "This amendment would require petition signers...," would be changed to read, "This amendment also would require petition signers...." Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, for the underlying (main) motion. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve the summary language for CA -12 as amended was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. .. Back to CA -I5 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to Communication 258, CA -15. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -15 as stated in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha CHR. HAITSUKA: We received something on this side relating to some proposed amendments to the ballot language. Have you all received your copies? MS. JARMAN: Yes we have, and Deanna Sako is here. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Sako, I thought you had a recommendation about the title. You wanted to change the title. MS. SAKO: I probably am not as concerned about the title; I know that would get too long. But, in the actual ballot amendment, where we are naming the fund, we would appreciate the full name. MS. OSBORNE: Could I ask a question? In subsection (4) requiring any balance remaining in the fund at the end of the fiscal year shall not lapse; does that mean it gets carried over, or does that mean it has to be expended within that fiscal year? MS. SAKO: I believe it means it is being carried over, but I also believe that language came exactly out of the CA -15 language that the commission adopted. In section (d) of CA -15, it says, "Any balance remaining in the fund at the end of any fiscal year shall not lapse, but shall remain in the fund accumulating interest from year to year." MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, is there a communication number? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Communication 256.13 relates to the proposed language for the ballot question and Communication 256.14 is the proposed language for the summary language. 45 Ms. Jarman moved to amend the ballot language for CA -15 and replace it with the language in Communication 256.13. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. OSBORNE: Actually, I have a concern. When it says in number one - - -Oh, never mind, I got it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, let's vote. The motion to replace the ballot language for CA -15 with the proposed language contained in Communication 256.13 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we have the underlying motion to adopt the ballot question language for CA -15. The motion to adopt the ballot question language for CA -15 as contained in Communication 258 and as amended with the language contained in Communication 256.13 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. ER CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4 with respect to the summary language for CA -15. We also have Communication 256.14. Mr. Shumway moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -15 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shumway moved to amend the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -15 as stated in Communication 256.4 and replace it with the language provided by the department of finance and contained in Communication 256.14. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. OSBORNE: I have a concern. I am trying to find the language where it says, "...including access to beaches and mountains; preservation...," I need one more second so I can look at that language and articulate my concerns. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, it was just brought to our attention by corporation counsel that in the original amendment when we were delimitating the uses of the fund it says, "The monies in this fund should be used to purchase of otherwise acquire lands or property entitlements...." The word, "entitlements" is left out. The question is whether that is significant enough to put in this summary. 47 MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, maybe because it says that it limits the use of money in the fund we should include, "... and property entitlements." So we are being specific as to all that can be done. Mr. Jarman moved to amend the summary language for CA -15 as contained in Communication 256.14 to add the words, "and property entitlements," after, "purchase and acquisition of lands and property," and before, "for outdoor recreation." Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: So we still have to approve the underlying motion to approve the Educational Committee's proposed summary language as amended relating to CA -15. The motion to approve the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -15 as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, don't we still have to do a motion. We had a motion and it was amended, and then the amendment was amended, so we might have to do one more vote. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, so one more vote that includes all of the amendments. MS. JARMAN: Yes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, let's go back to the underlying (main) motion. This would be to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed language as amended and then further amended. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -15 as amended and then further amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. Back to CA -17 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to CA -17 in Communication 258. Ms Jarman moved to adopt the proposed ballot language for CA -17 as contained in Communication 258. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. GOODENOW: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I may be off on the procedure here. We are on the ballot language, correct? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, that's correct. MR. GOODENOW: I don't see any issue. The only thing is like in the summary, it doesn't include any mention that the 2011 redistricting commission will still be appointed in the manner of the 2008 Charter. I don't know if you feel that is important or not, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on CA -17? The motion to approve the ballot language for CA -17 as contained in Communication 258 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's look at Communication 256.4 with respect to CA -17. Do I have a motion? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to adopt the Educational Committee's proposed summary language for CA -17 as stated in Communication 256.4. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Goodenow, did you have some comments on Communication 256.4 with regards to CA -17? 50 MR. GOODENOW: I just had the same comments as for the ballot question, but if you don't think it's important to put it in the ballot question, maybe you don't need to put it in the summary. I did suggest that you could put something like, "Following the 2011 Redistricting Commission, redistricting commission members would be appointed by July of the year before the redistricting year instead of January of the redistricting year." But I'll leave that you to decide, I just wanted to bring it to your attention. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. MR. SHUMWAY: I don't know if it requires an amendment, but I noticed that the second paragraph is missing a period at the end of the sentence. Does that require an amendment or can we make the correction? CHR. HAITSUKA: You can take your pen and just put a little dot there. MR. GOODENOW: The bracket after the (3) there is a space as well. MR. NAHALE -A: With regards to Mr. Goodenow's point, I guess it's one of those things where I don't think it is necessary, but since we keep hearing about problems of misinterpretation, so maybe it doesn't hurt to put it in. But it does become long. MR. GOODENOW: I did think you could just add it where it says, "Commission members would be appointed by July..." in the second paragraph, you could just put, "Following the 2011 Redistricting Commission, commission members would be appointed..." It would just be a few extra words. Mr. Nahale -a moved to amend the proposed summary language for CA -17 by adding the words, "Following the 2011 Redistricting Commission" before the words, commission members would be appointed by ...... Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, just for clarification, what is the motion again? It's the second paragraph; are we are going to add on the language in 256.10? Is that right Mr. Goodenow? MR. GOODENOW: Right, "Following the 2011 Redistricting Commission... (you don't have to put, redistricting again) ... commission members would be appointed..." I had Redistricting Commission members there and maybe that is not needed in order to shorten it. So, "Following the 2011 Redistricting Commission, commission members would be appointed by July of the year before the redistricting year instead of in January of the redistricting year." And that would be a small "c" for the commission. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have a hard time understanding what that means, but... 51 The motion to amend and further amend the summary language for CA -17 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we are back to the underlying (main) motion. The motion to approve the summary language for CA -17 as amended was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we are done with the proposed ballot language, except for maybe a discussion on how to get this all drafted up. 52 MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, since I actually have all of the Educational Committee language on my computer, I would be willing to work with our secretary to input the changes that we made for that portion of it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. We don't have anything about the order of the proposed ballot questions on our agenda. MS. JARMAN: That was part of our report, Mr. Chair. We are giving our report orally, and that is Todd's portion of our report. So that would be next on our report. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair, as part of our discussions we did talk about how we are going to organize the amendments. I put together a proposal that we more or less agreed upon within the committee to organize them by groups and by themes. Not naming the themes on the ballot or in our information, but just organizing them in a way that they would be grouped together. So what I had suggested, and we agreed on, was that basically there are essentially six different areas. The first one relates to departmental changes. I don't have a written copy for you guys right here, but it is fairly simple, if you want to write it down. The ones that refer to changes within departments were CA -1, CA -2, CA -3, CA -10, CA -11 and CA -29. Then the second category would be boards and commissions. Several are related to that. Those are CA -5, CA -6, CA -13 and CA -38. Then two of the amendments related directly to providing electronic notice of meetings. Those are CA -9 and CA -23. Two related to petitions. Those are CA -7 and CA -12. You could have one category for preservation of open space. Let me rephrase that. We put everything else in an "other" category to make it easier. That would be CA -4, CA -15, CA -17 and CA -36; feeling that those are essentially unrelated, and stand alone. So, I think the idea was that the order in which they would go wasn't something that we discussed, but that we would put them in these blocks to make it a little bit easier for voters to follow. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair, I am in support of what Mr. Shumway has said, but my only concern is the "other" category. It may create a perception that they are not as important as those that have categories. Perhaps there is some other wording that we can consider. MR. SHUMWAY: I wasn't thinking that they were actually going to identify the names of the categories. We wouldn't write them in, just that as we put them there, we would group those together. I totally agree, "other" sounds - - -We wouldn't want to create any perception of what these are, it's just in terms of the order in which they are placed. To me, it makes sense that we put them in grouping, but we don't label them as such. 53 MR. KAULUKUKUI: Okay, thanks for the clarification. That makes sense to me and I am supportive of the groupings as suggested by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MR. NAHALE -A: Can I just check; Mr. Goodenow, were ballot questions clustered in the past and labeled? MR. GOODENOW: It's probably best if Pat Nakamoto answers that. As I recall, in the 1979 one, they had them kind of bundled, but it's varied. If you give me a moment, I'll go get some examples from Pat Nakamoto. MR. NAHALE -A: Thank you. I guess that the reason I'm bringing it up, is that I am assuming that we want to start putting our materials together, so if we could settle this today, it would probably be helpful. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, while we are waiting for Pat, I was wondering if we could thank Karen for her excellent PowerPoint and make a motion to adopt her PowerPoint as part of the educational campaign; but amended with the changes that we made today. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the PowerPoint presentation sample in Communication 256.5 to be used as part of the educational campaign with the amendments made at the 8.13. 10 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have the pamphlet from the last Charter Commission, 1999 -2000. I'm not sure if there is any particular order. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, while we are waiting, can I make a comment? If we can label the grouping ones, then I would be in favor of moving those towards the end of the ballot in their own section, and then letting the individual ones stand alone. Not calling them any category, but just having them stand alone by themselves. Just so that it is a little more digestible to the public. I don't know if we can label it. I think we should cluster it for sure; I don't know if we can label them, "departmental changes" or "boards and commission." 54 MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, when you are looking at the brochure from before, did it appear that the more substantive ones were put first, and then the more procedural ones, or grammar corrections, or changing names of departments; did they come later? Or can you tell? CHR. HAITSUKA: The number one amendment was the non - partisan elections; which I guess was important. They had a kind of a mix of what I would call house cleaning types; moving around certain departments. They appointed a Fire Commission. That was number three. I don't really see any rhyme or reason to how they did this; certainly not in the order that they appear in the Charter. There doesn't seem to be any grouping. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, the clerk has returned. MR. GOODENOW: There was a special election in 1979 for a major revision of the Charter. That approach was like one big ramseyered document. Then they broke down the descriptions by categories. They even had a catch all, yes or no vote, for the things not included under the categories. It was very confusing to figure out after the fact, and it created headaches. A lot of them, as you know we were still having issues with the current version of the Charter. A lot of that stemmed to that. It was very messy and hard to figure out. So, we certainly wouldn't like that approach. Pat Nakamoto is getting the last Charter Commission's notes and how they arranged it, if that would be of assistance to you. I think it's pretty open though, to you guys. You guys make the call on how you want to present it. But we would not recommend the approach used in 1979. Even if you didn't put them in categories, you could number them that way. It's really not my place to say. MR. NAHALE -A: What do you mean? MR. GOODENOW: You could kind of group those departmental ones as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Then when you hit the boards and commissions, they could be 7, 8, 9, and 10. Then the electronic could be 11 and so on. MR. SHUMWAY: My idea was to do exactly that; just number them straight down, not label them; but if people wanted to look for connections, they could. The intent was that some of this stuff is very technical and I think it will help people once they get a feel like if we are talking about departments, they can focus on that. I personally think it would help to sort of understand what we are doing. I would oppose having them labeled as such. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm okay without the labels. I would rather have the open space be up front and the recall to be up front so that people would be more interested. It would encourage them to participate and then move down the line. So I would move to cluster them as proposed, not label them at all, but to make CA -15, that's the open space preservation fund; #1; make CA -7, which is relating to recall, #2; make CA -12, relating to charter amendment petitions, #3; make CA -4, relating to civil service laws, #4; make CA -17, relating to reapportionment commission, #5; make CA -26, relating to preservation of natural and cultural resources, #7; make CA -36, relating to membership on boards and commissions, #8; and then, if I can I'll just read the numbers from now on, next would come CA -1, CA -2, CA -3, 55 CA -10, CA -11, CA -29, which are all department changes; then CA -5, CA -6, CA -13, CA -38, which are boards and commissions; and finish up with CA -9 and CA -23. CHR. HAITSUKA: Commissioner Kealoha has to leave, do we still have five on that side? MR. SHUMWAY: Yes we do. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, would you like that read back, or did you get it? CHR. HAITSUKA: Maybe I should read it back and make sure I have the same list. MS. JARMAN: That would be a good idea. CHR. HAITSUKA: The order is CA -15, CA -7, CA -12, CA -4, CA -17, CA -26, CA -36, CA -1, CA -2, CA -3, CA -10, CA -11, CA -29, CA -5, CA -6, CA -13, CA -38, CA -9 and CA -23. MS. JARMAN: Correct. Mr. Nalahe -a moved to place the proposed ballot questions in the following order: CA -15, CA -7, CA -12, CA -4, CA -17, CA -26, CA -36, CA -1, CA -2, CA -3, CA -10, CA -11, CA -29, CA -5, CA -6, CA -13, CA -38, CA -9 and CA -23. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Unger. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I think we have to vote on our motion to file the communications. CHR. HAITSUKA: That's right. I think we combined them, so can we do one vote? MS. JARMAN: Correct. The motion to file Communications 256.1, 256.2, 256.3 and 258 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Unger. 56 CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to reports. REPORTS CHR. HAITSUKA: We don't have any reports. REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no referrals for executive session. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Our next regular meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 10, 2010, 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. MS. OSBORNE: Please note, I cannot attend on that date. MR. SHUMWAY: I also cannot attend. MS. JARMAN: That would be a difficult day for me to attend. CHR. HAITSUKA: Should we try to reschedule to another day? MS. JARMAN: How about September 17, 2010. CHR. HAITSUKA: How does September 17, 2010 look to everyone? MS.OSBORNE: Good. MR. SHUMWAY: Good. MS. JARMAN: We are all fine on this side. CHR. HAITSUKA: So let's set it for Friday, September 17, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. 57 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Osborne moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Unger. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission W