|
On the issue of term limits, just from a theoretical standpoint, I totally agree with having four
<br />years. But, I don't think that will pass. I think it was after Arakaki was in for twelve years,
<br />and people just felt there was such a strong -hold on county government by having one person
<br />in that way, and the sense that if there was somebody that was wrong, it would take four
<br />years to get them out. I just think you are up against a lot of opposition. What you might do,
<br />even if you really want four years, is go to three years now and maybe in the future go to
<br />four. I completely agree that it is less efficient, and that it's expensive to have elections and
<br />how could we do it otherwise. You're certainly going to have to do a lot of educating, I
<br />think, to do four years. Just asking people, it's like, no, we just finally got away from that.
<br />Keep in mind there is still a lot of distrust that everything is done behind closed doors here
<br />and that we really want to have government as open as possible, even if it costs more. I think
<br />three years might work, and then have a maximum of three, three year terms. I just warn
<br />you, I don't think the four years will pass. Again, it is an issue of what's more efficient, and
<br />what delivers better services; but there is a trust issue involved here. I don't think that-- -
<br />Considering the people who were here when this issue came up before, there's just too much
<br />fear about what's going to happen if you went to four years. Again, I think it's important to
<br />say -- whatever you do - -this doesn't give those in office a new set of terms. It would go into
<br />effect with whatever new election.
<br />I'm just about done here. One thing that Prosecutor Kimura proposed --I think this was at the
<br />last session and he wasn't there, and I think you held it over to your next meeting- -was he
<br />wanted to remove the sentence that said -- -Right now, Corporation Counsel can represent
<br />anyone on any board, for any matter relating in any way to their job, except if they are
<br />impeached. He wanted to remove that last sentence that says, except if they're impeached. I
<br />would like to at least say, if they're impeached for a willful violation, at least in terms of the
<br />Sunshine Law, I don't' think that's appropriate. He gave some examples in what he
<br />submitted that where someone sort of inadvertently funds are given to them that are really
<br />then going to that board, going to some other entity, and it's all this sort of very inadvertent
<br />stuff. What I just think is if you are going to look at it, there has to be aline. If there is
<br />somebody sort of willfully - - -To be impeached, maybe there are other reasons, but usually if
<br />they are impeached it's because they have committed a crime or a willful violation. You sort
<br />out where your standard is, or where that break point is. I think that is what the prohibition
<br />part is supposed to be about. If someone willfully does something wrong, that he doesn't
<br />have the right to demand that our county money be spent to defend him. I think, unless I
<br />may be misunderstanding it, I think right now - -with all of these conflict of interest issues
<br />coming up in West Hawaii Today - -this issue is even more important because it seems like,
<br />to the public, that the corporation counsel and the prosecuting attorney are all trying to
<br />protect these folks that may have violated the Sunshine Law, and maybe willfully.
<br />Anyway, thank you very much. I didn't go through all of what I testified to. I think at some
<br />point, maybe at your next months meeting, I'm going to go over some of those, and sort of
<br />work through some of the questions that came up. I will say one thing on tightening up the
<br />ethical standards. I think the current provision that is used is sort of like the least protective,
<br />the lowest of the statutes around the country, if you looked at the different ones. If you
<br />looked at what is their's, per self interest, is it just something that just affects them and their
<br />immediate family, and look at that ours is on the more limited side. I'm just sort of trying to
<br />0
<br />
|