Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-07-03 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 25th Session July 3, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The twenty-fifth session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 2: 34 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii by Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Harlan Cadinha Mr. Richard Ishida Mrs. Amy Iwamoto Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi (came in later) Mr. Akira Omonaka (came in later) Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte Mr. Herman Sensano Mr. Joseph Trulson Mr. Matsuo Yanaga Absent Mr. Basilio Yagong and Excused: Also Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney: (came in later) Present: Ms. Frances Higa, Research Assistant Mrs. Joan Carnett, Secretary APPROVAL The Chair called for approval of minutes dated OF MINUTES: June 19, 1979. Mr. Sensano made the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Iwamoto and unani- mously carried. BUSINESS CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The business of the day will OF THE DAY: be to continue drafting revisions to the charter. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman. As a matter of record., under communications, I would like to have it recorded that 'I am in receipt of a letter from the West Hawaii Committee, Mr. Bill Moss, and it shall be filed with our secrdtary and numbered as communications for next week's business. Just as a matter of record. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are there any other communications that any of. you have receive&to put on record? Mr. Oda is not here but we have his assistant and i think if you will look over some of the handouts we have received on some of the changes, revised :language and things that we have adopted without any changes, a record of some of the things we have completed. WATER DEPT: On the department of water, according to the proposal of Mr. Cadinha, last week, on the Maui board of water, did we just say that we are going to retain some of the wording that we find in our present charter under the board of water supply? MS. HIGA: The language in the handout that I gave to you is from the Maui charter as this body accepted. The underlining that you see on this handout is what we added to the Maui charter but, basically, it is the same thing except that we made some shifts so that it would be in conformance with the way our charter is presently written. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Omonaka is present now. MR. SCHUTTE: Would it be proper then, Mr. Chairman , to say that this particular draft has been amended and it will be necessary to vote on this amended version? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: This is just a change in language. MR. SCHUTTE: Certain language has been changed merely to conform to the County of Hawaii and I so move at this time that this particular portion regarding the department of water supply, revised chapter 6, be accepted. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept and approve the department of water supply as has been amended with the language that has been written by our legal counsel. Any discussion on this? MR. TRULSON: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everybody know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Iwamoto, Noes - Sensano, Ishida, Schutte, Omonaka, Trulson, Sakata • Yanaga 6 Absent-Kobayashi, 3 Carried. Yagong - 2 MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I am not sure but I don 't think that motion included changing the proposal -2- made on the water department to Article V, Chapter 6 and move the present Chapter 6, Miscellaneous to Chapter 7 CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Will someone so move that we change the article to--under the present charter, the department of water supply is Article VIII, and on our amended MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman• I think I mentioned in my motion that the department of water supply be as Article V, Chapter 6, department of water supply. It wouldn't be necessary to make an addition to that move. MR. TRULSON: I was just asking the question? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Then that is clear? SECTION 3-8: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Higa, Section 3-8, organization of the council , officers and employees. This is also being moved on today? The final form being moved on today? MS. HIGA: Yes. It was redrafted as you requested. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that we adopt Section 3-8, organization of the council , officers and employees, as submitted by the counsel. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do we have a second? MR. SCHUTTE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 3-8 as has been written by our legal counsel. Any discussion on this? SECTION 5-2.3: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. My motion should also, I believe, involve Section 5-2.3. Or does that have to be on a separate motion? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Section 5-2.3? MR. SCHUTTE: I so move that that shall be included in my second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 3-8 and also Section 5-2.3. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I believe that is Section 3-8, subparagraph (c) and Section 5-2.3. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Section 3-8, subparagraph (c) and Section 5-2.3. Does everyone know the final intent of the motion? -3- Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Absent - Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Cadinha, Yagong Sakata - 9 - 2 Carried. ARTICLE VII : MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Are you prepared to go to Article VII? CHAPTER 6 MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Will it be necessary,for the record, to move that Chapter 6, Miscellaneous will be moved and hereafter known as Chapter 7, as it has been replaced by the department of water supply. The original motion on the department of water supply has been changed to Article V, Chapter 6, but we haven't moved Miscellaneous , which is presently Chapter 6 to Chapter 7 and as a result, .I so move that that Miscellaneous section, Chapter 6 be moved to Chapter 7. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that the present- Chapter 6, Miscellaneous, be moved to: Chapter 7 since the department of water supply, Article V will be under Chapter 6. Any discussion? Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Ishida, Iwamoto, Noes - None Cadinha, Trulson, Omonaka, Sensano, Absent - Kobayashi, Schutte, Yanaga, Yagong Sakata - 9 - 2 Carried. ARTICLE VII : MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. The present-director of personnel services has requested that we change the heading to the department of civil services to conform with State Statutes. Instead of department of personnel services, he would like it to be department of civil services, That was in reference to correspondence #10. Communications #10. In that communication, Mr. Silva stated, "We recommend that Article VII , Executive Branch - Departments or Agencies Under Commissions Chapter 1 be amended to read as follows : Department of Civil Service. " The rationale he gives is, "The title of the department is changed from 'Department of Personnel Services ' to 'Department of Civil Service' in order to conform with Chapter 76-71 , HRS, which states, 'There shall be a department of civil service for each of the counties of Hawaii. . . ' ." -4- MR. SCHUTTE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we change the . wording. of Article VII , Department of /Personnel/ Services to Department of Civil Services. Is there any discussion on this? MR. ISHIDA: Akira, just to test your memory, do you recall why it was called Department of Personnel Services? I know that the Maui charter and the Kaui charter uses personnel services, so I was just wondering. . . MR. OMONAKA: I think under the old setup, it was called the personnel department. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman , if that be the case, then Mr. Trulson; maybe, should indicate that Article VII, Chapter 1 , shall be known as the Department of Civil Service and every other provision throughout that particular section that refers to Department of Personnel Services be changed to Department of Civil Services, wherever. necessary. MR. TRULSON: I so amend my motion to include that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Article VII, Chapter 1 , shall be known not as the Department of Personnel Service but as the Department of Civil Service and all language stating personnel service, Department of Personnel Service shall be changed to Department of Civil Service. Any other discussion on this? Is everyone aware of the intent of the motion? Changing the Department of Personnel Service to Department of Civil Service, and change the language thereof in this Chapter 1. Ayes - Sensano, Omonaka, Noes - Yanaga - 1 Trulson, Cadinha, Iwamoto, Ishida, Absent - Kobayashi Schutte, Sakata Yagong - 8 2 Carried. Mrs. Kobayashi is present, as of now. SECTION7-1.6: MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman. I don ' t know if I am jumping too far ahead, but Section 7-1.6, Administrative Supervision, s_tate5'The Department of Personnel Services shall come under the general supervision and control of the mayor. " I would like to make reference back to the minutes of June 19, in which Mayor Matayoshi , when questioned by myself, did make the statement relative to this particular administrative supervision , whereby he said, and I quote, "I would like to see it so i could challenge that, the ultimate end, but if you are going to change it then knock it off. " -5- I believe he was making reference to the administrative supervision portion in all of this regarding that portion that does not give him that authority or that his authority would be questionable. I think the question that I am trying to arrive at.' is whether this particular section. . . .on adminis- trative supervision. . . .according- to the mayor, at this time, he does not feel it is absolutely necessary because it is a very vague section. if you will turn to page 24 of the minutes of June 19, and also page 35 , you may read about the particular comments he made relative to that particular portion. . . .I would like to get some input from the other commissioners here. . . - - CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you feel we should delete this section or do you think we should still retain it as such? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I have read past minutes and past answers from almost everybody we have asked on this question, and even the. . .members of this commission, and to my- knowledge, nobody knows what it means. I think it is open to-a wide interpretation. I don ' t see what it would hurt to leave it as it is. It doesn ' t seemed to have caused any great problem, to date. .`Everybody seems to have an idea, but they don' t really have a clear idea because they don ' t know what it means. I believe Chief Paul had a definition given to him by the former Charter Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: If you will recall , the Police Commission wanted to get it out of the way. MR. TRULSON: Yes, they did. Mr. Paul stated . . .one minute. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I think what we are looking at here are the comments made; by the mayor, he said, if you are going to change that because it is a very vague section. . .if you are going to interpret his language of knocking it off as meaning that those particular sections wherever it is mentioned. . .I think that in the past testimony that we have had from departments. . . . MR. TRULSON: Chief Paul said that his only interpretation says to him was a catchall to cover anything thatmight have been missed. I think that as far as administrative supervision, general supervision and control , the Mayor should have some control to exercise over the police department, the fire, 'department. . .he has no control whatsoever. Theoretically, he could call an emergency and could have no response. He should have some type of control on all departments, in my opinion. I feel that Section 7-1.6 should be retained. -6- MR. CADINHA: I 'm sorry, could you repeat that, Bud. MR. TRULSON: I feel that Section 7-1.6 should be retained as is. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. May we consult with Judge Oda for a second on this verbiage of "general supervision and control"? MR. SCHUTTE: Should we direct our questions to Your Honor, or should it be Counsel? MR. ISHIDA: May I say something? He is our EMPLOYEE. MR. ODA: "Hey!!,_ would be better. First of all, Mr. Chairman, my apologies for being late. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We would like to congratulate you on your new job, your new office. MR. ODA: I appreciate that. I had to get some clerical matters out of the way. I had to sign certain things to get paid, you know. This matter, of course, was brought to my attention when I first appeared before you, months ago, as to its meaning and general interpretation. As the weeks and months went by, I got thefeeling that. . .and as we did some research on it. . .I don ' t think Frances Higa was with me at the time. . .as I did some research on it, I could not come to grips with the actual meaning of it except on a very theoretical and philo- sophical basis. I think, presently, my thoughts on it are these that the language was left vague because--and I think Mr. Omonaka can correct me, if I- am wrong--that the previous group that attempted to amend the charter had extreme difficulty in defining and kind of putting boundaries around specific intent and purposes of this particular phrase any better than it is right now. I suspect, and I have nothing in writing to back me up on this, but my shotgun opinion on this is that in spite of the fact that we have commissions overseeing the _ operations of various departments such -as civil-service and water commission, and etc. , the recognition and the intent of the framers of the charter was that the Mayor, as the chief executive of the county, had to have authority, the administrative authority, on sort of a string out there, on a line out there, so that he could maintain some control over the operations of an executive department. The reason being, of course, because he is the elected official, solely responsible to the electorate for the;::operations, the functions and, in fact, any wrongdoings of the department. He is accountable to the electorate so, therefore, he has to have some control and measure of supervision over the department. I cannot see any other reason why something like that would be there except to be sure that the Mayor has some control over the operation. Otherwise you have the comments -7- that we received from people about the ;Nater .eepartment going off into left field, so to speak. I think it is, probably, sound administration to have one person responsible for the actions of the government of which he is head. He can always passthe buck down, but, eventually, that is the way it is and I think in any department where you find that the department head, although he is appointed by a commission, it is a hierarchy kind of a situation where you have the Mayor at the top, the commission, and the department head, you know, on a three level tier, so to speak. To some extent the commissioner is responsible to the Mayor as well, and the department head to the commission and to the Mayor, but, that is the only theoretical foundation that I could really come to grips with. I don 't think there should be any attempt to redefine that particular phrase. I think it is going to be a futile attempt to do so and, in fact, we might box ourselves in if we try to make it too detailed. Unfortunately, there has been some problem, as Chief Paul has testified regarding what his role and responsibilities are. As tempting as it may • be to clarify it, my feeling on it is that perhaps the best thing to do is just leave it as it is without attempting to tamper with it. MR. SCHUTTE: Counsel, what you are saying then is that leave it in the vague situation. If it does have to be challenged, let the courts. . . . MR. ODA: Let the courts grapple with it. MR. SCHUTTE: I would imagine it would be a rather difficult .situation. . .you know, here we have the Mayor that sits on top of it and he appoints the directors of the makeup of the commission and if he does not have some retaliatory measures to move his department it would be rather difficult. But, then again, he does say in his own statement that it is very vague in its application and he also says if we are going to tamper with it, he suggests that we do away with it. So, maybe, as you say, leaving it as such until such a time that it is challenged. MR. ODA: Actually, I think it is understood as a matter of just executive administration, or governmental administration that the executive head of the government should have somecontrol over an executive agency. Regardless of whether -tiere _is a commission, overriding it or not. The other matter is that a commission such as what we have in our government is basically a part-time commission. They meet once, or at most, twice a month, with the exception of the planning commission , perhapsi'. but most of these commissions meet very infrequently and they are not familiar with the day- to-day functions of the department, and rightly so, they don ' t. They come to the meetings and are practically spoon fed by the department head as to what is to what is going on. Now, in the meantime, what happens on the other twenty-nine days of the month where the commission doesn' t meet and is not physically involved in the--or intellectually involved in the operations of the department. It is the Mayor. . .it is the Mayor -8- who is supposed to be acting, not only the twenty-nine or thirty days,but even during the commission meeting. There might be others who have a stronger reason why it should be eliminated but I think it is better to have that language in there. I would rather use the word "broad" rather than "vague". It is very broad and the intent, I think, is to give the mayor some authority, expressly, to supervise the executive departments. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Trulson, did you have a motion? MR. TRULSON: Yes. MR. SCHUTTE: Was there a second to that? MR. OMONAKA: Second. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Discussion. With regards to authoritative control or responsibility with the mayor, I haven ' t thought this one through, but we have, in the consistency that we have tried to bring to the new charter, asked for all department heads to be appointed by the mayor with confirmation by the council and the removal step would be purely on the part of the Mayor, if one was necessary. I just throw this out to the commission, what would happen if commissioners were to be appointed, confirmed and removed, if necessary, by the mayor, if we are to be consistent insofar as the commissions are concerned? Would that do anything, administratively, to facilitate this control and general supervision verbiage? Or is it something we don 't want to do? I don ' t know. I was just thinking about this. The mayor would exercise a little more control then he has now by being able to remove a commissioner. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Cadinha, at the present time you are stating that the mayor cannot remove a commissioner once he is appointed. MR. CADINHA: There is no provision for it. I was just looking at the Police Department, Chapter 2, and it just says. . .The members- shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council in the manner prescribed. . . oh, excuse me, evidently, I haven ' t done my homework . MR. OMONAKA: The commission members are confirmed by the council, page 30. MR. CADINHA: I know they are confirmed but the removal step. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I believe this particular portion here, Executive Branch, Departments or Agencies under Commissions, the reason for that is because -9- you've got the Police Department, you've got the Liquor Control, Personnel Services, the reason, I think, for keeping the Mayor out of this is so that once he makes his appointment he doesn ' t come back and continue to become involved in that particular commission. This is why, I think, you find these particular commissions that are appointed and that elect their own, or appoint, their own director and in the case of the Chief of Police, the commission does appoint the Chief of Police but I don ' t think you should put the Mayor in their where he can remove these individuals, at any time, because then I think you will have a problem. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Upon review of the various directors under Article VII in their testimonies to us, like they said, they did not completely understand that section, but they all said that there had never been any abuse by the Mayor, or the present Mayor, I would say. There, again, there is the possibility for future abuse of it and there, again, you can 't charter the person, you have got to. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I don ' t think there has been any major difficulty, whatsoever, as far as this provision is providing for. MR. TRULSON: I would like to move for the question. MR. SCHUTTE: I call for the question. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we retain Section 7-1.6, as it is. Any other discussion? Are you ready for the question? Does everybody know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Noes - None Cadinha, Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Trulson, Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Would it be proper at this time then to move that the balance of this particular Chapter 1 , Department of Civil Service be left as is. MRS. IWAMOTO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Article VII , Chapter 1 , Department of Civil Service be adopted, as it is. MR. SCHUTTE: My motion, Mr. Chairman , was the balance of it. -10- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt the balance of Chapter 1, Article VII. Any other discussion? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. . . MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. I 'm sorry, I missed the part of it, the motion was to change the name of the department? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: From personnel, service to civil service. MR. ODA: It is already done? MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Question of legal counsel. Mr. Oda, is there a concern about the civil service wording? MR. ODA: Well, i understand the personnel director, Mr. Silva, had testified regarding this provision? And this was his request? MR. SCHUTTE: He referredto--in his correspondence --to the statutes. MR. TRULSON: Chapter 76-71 HRS. MR. ODA: No problem. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, that Section 7-1.5 , with the collective bargaining agreement with the unions now, is that language appropriate? The present language? MR. ODA: I don ' t see anything wrong with that, Mr. Omonaka. I think that would be subject to the. . .except it says, as provided by law, and the law would be the superceding law of the collective bargaining.. So the union contracts bargained under would fall within that language. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any other discussion? MR. OMONAKA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everybody know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi,i, Noes None Iwamoto, Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. 11 CHAPTER 2: CHAIRMAN SAKATA: we will go into Chapter 2, Police Department. MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. I would think that we should leave the Police Department as it is. Like the Civil Service Department, except on this 7-2.5 . Under (c) , . .Take charge of and keep the county jail and, all prisoners committed thereto. I think the county jail is under the state. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Then you want to delete that? MR. YANAGA: Yes, I think we talked about it before. I have it in my book to delete that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I think the Police Commission did come before us and they wanted that section to be deleted, completely taken out. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. What is the position of counsel relative to that? Should that portion be deleted? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We' ll ask counsel. MR. ODA: Are you referring to subsection (c) ? MR. YANAGA: Right. MR, ODA: I think Mr. Yanaga is correct on that. The institution is now under the . jurisdiction of the state. It is called the Hawaii Community , Correctional Facility. MR. SCHUTTE: Does Commissioner Yanaga make a motion to that effect? About subsection (c) being deleted? MR. YANAGA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Be deleted and the rest of it be retained as such. MRS. IWAMOTO: Mr. Chairman. I believe another change that they wanted to make was the Section 7-2.2, Police Commission. Instead of seven members, they wanted that increased to nine. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: What was the rational behind it. More representation? MRS. IWAMOTO: More public participation and at times there are some of the members who are absent and they were unable to meet . . .- - CHAIRMAN eet . •_ - CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Yanaga, you were on the police commission. Do you feel at times you -people did not have enough commissioners there to hold a meeting or even have enough to • -12- MR. YANAGA: Well, that is the thing, you have more commissioners, you have more input. . . .the more the merrier . . . MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I think, if I recall, one of the reasons that they wanted to enlarge the commission, is that at the present time, many times they have a hard time ; to get a quorum on any votes. They thought, by having nine, the chances of having enough people for a quorum would be more apt to happen.. I believe there is only five now. There are only five now. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Did they fill the positions in there yet, Commissioner Yanaga? MR. YANAGA: I think so. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Filled then? MR. YANAGA: Well, it all depends on the Mayor, how soon he fills them. At one time, he let it go for six months and we had a hard time getting a quorum. MR. CADINHA: What was his reason for not filling it, Fish, do you have any idea? MR. YANAGA: No. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. What is the quorum in the commission? Majority? MR. CADINHA: Is it four? Four consists of a quorum, right? MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. You know, this is rather difficult, the rationale is rather difficult to accept merely from the standpoint that we are saying that we have voted on a county council that consists of 7 members that we feel can run this county. . .yet, we feel that the police commission should be increased to 9 members because they might not have enough individuals to have a quorum. The rationale is the same. If that be the case, it is rather difficult for me to accept that at this time we should increase the commissions if we are going to run the council at 7 members. What happens in that case? We are 'talking about more public input. I think that we missed the boat, last week ! MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. My motion was to leave it as status quo. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Leave it as status quo. just delete subsection (c) . Is there a second? MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we the 'Police Department should be left as such is written in the charter, just deleting subsection (c) . Does everybody know the intent of the motion? -13- Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Absent - Yagong Iwamoto, Kobayashi , - 1 Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. CHAPTER 3 : Chapter 3, Department of Liquor Control. MRS. KOBAYASHI: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept Chapter 3, Department of Liquor Control with no changes, as suggested by the department. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we retain the Department of Liquor Control as written in the charter. Any discussion? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Some of the concern was of the many commissions that we have. I believe the Mayor stated that the Liquor Commission could possibly be one that we could consider deleting. MR. ' CHUTTE: Would you repeat that again, Mr. Trulson? MR. TRULSON: The Mayor stated at one time that . . .it is in the minutes of the third meeting. . .where _'he says, "if you are considering abolishing commissions, my basic thinking is that I would go along with abolishing commissions of liquor. . . " MR. SCHUTTE: What is his rationale on that? MR. TRULSON: I think it was the concern we had stated that the people thought there were too many commissions and I think he was questioned on ib. . .I 'm just bringing it up in discussion. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Going along with the Police Department and so forth, I believe that this, in spite of what the Mayor has requested, at that time, or has suggested, I believe that this section, this chapter, should remain, as the police commission indicates, mainly because it is a very political position_ and I don ' t think the director should be subjected to being removed from this liquor commission. To leave it under the Mayor, I don ' t think it would be in the best interests of all concerned. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. CADINHA: Question for the motion. -14- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we retain the Department of Liquor, Chapter 3, as it is in the charter. Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Omonaka, Sensano, Noes - Trulson - 1 Yanaga, Cadinha, Absent - Yagong - 1 Ishida, Schutte, Iwamoto, Kobayashi , Sakata -9 Carried. WATER DEPT: According to the handout, the Department of Water Supply is under Article V, Chapter 6. MR. ODA: As an executive department. ARTICLE IX: CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will go into Article IX, Prosecuting Attorney. MR. ODA: What will happen to Article VIII? Which was the former Department of Water Supply. MR. ISHIDA: It has been deleted. MR. SCHUTTE: If wedelete it, would it be proper to move (Article IX and make that Article VIII? MR. ISHIDA: I ' think we should just leave it up to the legal counsel as he redrafts to renumber these things. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, on Section 9-2. Qualifications. Again, it makes mention of an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing before the supreme court in the State of Hawaii. Did we make a change on that so that everything would be. . . MR. ODA: No, I think we are conforming it to this language. The thing I would recommend , Mr. Chairman, is that two years be changed to one year, as the others. That is the last sentence of that section. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer to Communication 415 where Mr. Ono gave us quite a list of possible changes or amendments. Many of them which were, forgive me for the lack of „the `word. . .an example such as changing /magistrates7 to make it judges. The present wording like Section 9-4 (d)—would be to insert instead of magistrate, judges, wherever the word magistrate is. There is one other section that he had an extensive amount of input and I would like to refer to our counsel regarding proposed Section 9-5, Staff. He proposes a subsection (b) The prosecuting attorney may appoint investigators who shall have all the powers and piv rileges of a police of of the county. That was for subpoena powers mainly what he considered was for minor offenses, but it would appear to open up quite a bit of subpoena power to perhaps people who shouldn 't have it. -15- MR. ODA: Could you read that again? MR. TRULSON: I ' ll do better than that, sir. (gave Communication #15 to Mr. Oda) MR. ODA: Do you want some comments on that? MR. TRULSON: Please. MR. ODA: With the caveat that I am looking at this for the first time, this proposed provision that says that the prosecuting attorney may appoint investigators who shall have all the powers and privileges of a police officer of the county, I have some reservations about that, in all due respect to Mr. Ono' s concerns and requests. In fairness to him, I didn ' t hear what he had to say, previously. But, just on the basis of this provision as I read it, now, what it amounts to and is tantamount to is that the investigators who are in his office will have the right to arrest people on the probable belief that they in violation of any laws of this state. fthink that to make investigators equivalent of police officers, I really don ' t think it is necessary to the extent that I think the wording of this thing really projects it to be. If you want police officers to do anything with the powers of police officers, or anybody to have the powers of a police officer, the Prosecuting Attorney' s Office, all they have to do is to pick up a. telephone to get the assistance of the Police Department. ,- I am especially leery of giving too many people powers of police officers who do not undergo the kind of training and the kind of supervision and the kind of overall daily, you might say, concerns of every other police officer and I am not sure whether we are opening a Pandora' s box by doing this. I am really not sure why this is really necessary. MR. ISHIDA: I think the reason is that although you have to--right now, if the prosecutor doesn 't have an they with that type of power t ey have to work in conjunction with the Police Department. . .and, generally, there is no police officer assigned to an office. If there is one assigned to that office, I don ' t think you will have that much of a problem. I don' t think the purpose of it is for the purpose of any arresting any individuals. It is generally for serving subpoenas, mainly because it is a more practical thing. While the individual would have more power than serving subpoenas, however, the essential, practical effect is to just have this investigator available to the prosecutor whenever, for trial purposes, they need a subpoena served right away, the investigator is there. To get a police officer to do that, they always have an inter-departmental problem. It is a relationship problem, I think. -16- That is the only reason, I would assume, why he is requesting that. MR. TRULSON: He mentioned, specifically, being witnesses. MR. SCHUTTE: I think the intent that he projected to us, at that time, was in regards to getting witnesses and the problems involved. If I can recollect, he thought at the time when an individual is hot to testify they had to get this subpoena power in order to get this person to testify, to make a statement, etc. I also. feel-and I questioned Mr. Ono in regards to his request, and I felt that it was not he could not substantiate it enough and it would be kind of left open. It involved the privacy of the individual. I think as far as serving goes, of getting a subpoena and serving it, it is as close as the telephone is in regards to an officer. I don 't think there is any clerical problem involved once a subpoena is made. MR. ODA: If that is the specific rationale behind it, then I think the provision as worded, right now, is too broad. Why not just say that. . .may appoint investi- gators who shall have the powers to issue subpoenas. MR. SCHUTTE: What section are you talking about? MR. ODA: Subsection (b) . MR. TRULSON: That is his proposal. Subsection proposal. (b) of 9..5. That isn' t in the present charter. MR. CADINHA: No, no. Mr. Chairman. Discussion. I feel that the subpoena power rests with the courts right now and I cannot tolerate vesting anybody else in the county with that authority. I ' ll be darned if some guy is going to come rap on my door from theProsecutingAttorney' s office to compel me to show my books and to appear under oath. I would have to vote against that. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Point of question here. I don ' t think we are discussing the power of the subpoena. The provision that was suggested is strictly to have an individual who has the power of a police officer for the purpose of serving subpoenas, not to issue subpoenas. The purpose of issuing subpoenas is another provision which Mr. Ono recommended. Doesn ' t that one just say for serving subpoenas? MR. ODA: No. Are we referring to subsection (b)? It says. . .The prosecuting attorney may appoint investigators who shall have ALL the powers and privileges of a police officer of the county! -17- MR. ISHIDA: Right, and the police officer has no power to issue subpoenas. Only to serve subpoenas.. MR. ODA: No, but if that is what he wants, why doesn ' t he say that why can 't we restrict that the role of the investigator to__serve subpoenas such as any other police officer. MR. ISHIDA: I can really appreciate Mr. Ono' s concern because I have been in the prosecutor' s office some time and if you have an individual there. . .in Honolulu, what we had, we had police detectives assigned to the prosecutor' s office and we also had a couple of positions that were open to the prosecutor' s office who were equivalent to police officers and, in fact, were former police officers. To have them available, at your beck and call , is the most, you know, for efficient purposes, you can ' t beat it, you have to have it. If you need it, they are there, at your beck and call. The Police Department, they are not at your beck and call. You have to call the chief or the supervisor and say can we have one mani:to come down here and sometimes you have to work at split second notice. It is a practical problem, that is what I think. If people are concerned as to whether these investigators may not be qualified as police officers, I would suggest to qualify them, have them trained so that you have that consistency. I think that if Mr. Ono doesn 't have that individual , now, in his office, we should grant him that authority to have that power. Grant him the privilege of having an individual assigned to his office, one way or the other. MR. ODA: To do what? To issue subpoenas? MR. ISHIDA: No, not to issue them. To serve them. MR. ODA: His proposal, in another section, says to ISSUE subpoenas ! Now, that is a circuit court jurisdictional. MR. ISHIDA: That is the other issue. MR ODA: Right, right, that is another one. MR. ISHIDA: I am talking only about the investigators, now, that is all. MR. ODA: Okay, but as I see it, Richard, it seems to me that the present language of what he is proposing is much, much too broad. In effect, he wants the investigator to be a police officer. MR. ISHIDA: That provision is identical to that in the Honolulu charter, that is why he took it out that way. -18- MR. ODA: Because that will give him the power of arrest, too, and that scares me. MR. ISHIDA: Right. MR. CADINHA: is there any purpose to that other than a practical purpose of instant coercion? MR. ISHIDA: If I were a prosecutor, I would say, yes, there is, to be practical about it. MR. ODA: The investigator' s who go out and question a witness, it could then be used to intimidate witnesses. . .you don' t cooperate with me, I ' ll put you under arrest. - MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Could I make a suggestion? _Why don 't we start at the first subsection and work down? I believe it would :be--less confusing. Try Section 9-1 and work down and then bring up the things as they come from Mr. Ono' s request. That would also give Mr. Oda a longer time to read Mr. Ono' s presentation. SECTION 9-1 : CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Shall we take the suggestion and take Section 9-1, Election and Term of Office. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that we adopt Section 9-1 as is, of Article IX. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 9-1 , Election and Term of Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, as is. Any discussion? MR. SCHUTTE: Discussion. Mr. Trulson, do you think it appropriate, at this time, to include 9-2 and 9-3 in that also? The only correction in 9-2 is the elimination of /two years7 and put in one year. MR. TRULSON: I so amend my motion to that. MR. SCHUTTE: I second the amendment. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 9-1, 9-2, with the amendment to amend the words/two years7 to one year, and Section 9-3 on Compensa- tion. Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Aye - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Absent - Yagong - 1 Omonaka, Yanaga, ,Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. -19- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Could we have a five minute recess, please? RECESS: At 3 :50 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 4: 11 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. MR. ODA: I would ask the commission for whenever changes are required, as Mr. Ishida calls it, for ministerial functions, just to conform to language, that I would like to have some kind of authority from the commission to make the necessary changes in language, not in substance, but in form, to conform to make it consistent. MR. SCHUTTE: I think we have already given that authority to counsel at the last meeting. MR. ODA: Did you? Last meeting? SECTION 9-4: MR. SCHUTTE: There was a suggestion in sub- section (d) and (e) that the word /magistrates7 be changed to judges. There are two in (d) and one in (e) . My question is that they all be changed from magistrates to judges. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved .that the word magistrates in subsection (d) and (e) be changed to judges in Section 9-4. MR. SCHUTTE: With regard to Section 9-4, Powers, Duties and Functions, I move that the Section be adopted it is amended and that counsel make the necessary corrections in the language. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 9-4, Powers, Duties and Functions of the Prosecuting Attorney by amending the language to judges instead of magistrates in subsections (d) and (e) . MR. TRULSON: Commissioner Schutte, your motion is on all of the Section 9-4? MR. SCHUTTE: That is correct. All of Section 9-4. Giving counsel the authority to make the necessary corrections. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Ono has asked for one other change which is purely a housekeeping change.,. which he would like to call. subsection. (f) . That is._ _to. . .-( f:) . . .Investigate all matters which may properly come before him. He states, in his testimony, which would simply state that again this is simply a housekeeping type of addition -20- conformed somewhat to the Honolulu charter and I think the general duties of the office including investigating crimes. I think we should put that in but you would have to amend your motion. MR. SCHUTTE : I don' t understand what you are trying to. . . MR. TRULSON: I would like to have that into your motion. I would like to amend your motion to include that. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I will so amend my motion to include an addition which shall be known as subsection (f) , as suggested by the Prosecuting Attorney. It shall state. . . (f) Investigate all matters which may properly come before him. MR. TRULSON: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 9-4, Powers, Duties and Functions with the amendments as follows : Subsections (d) and (e) delete the word /magistrates7 and insert judges; add a new subsection (f) Investigate all matters which may properly come before him. Is there any further discussion? Do you under- stand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Sensano, Noes - None Trulson, Yanaga, Cadinha, Ishida, Absent - Yagong - 1 Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Omonaka, 'Sakata - 10 Carried. MR, SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I would also like to move that Section 9-5 , Staff; Section:9-6, Vacancy in Office be approved as indicated and a change in Section 9-7, where we will omit the word /law/ and insert this charter. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do we have a second to that? MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA.: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 9-5 and 9-6, and 9-7, deleting the word /law7 and inserting this charter. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 9-5 be amended so As to read that the present paragraph be designated as subsection (a) _arid a ,new subsection (b) be added which shall read. . .the prosecuting attorney may appoint investigators who shall have all the powers and privileges of a police officer of the county. -21- MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 9-5 , 9-6, and 9-7 as amended and 9-5 with the present paragraph designated as subsection ( a) and a new subsection (b) added. MR. SCHUTTE: Excuse me. Richard, Section 9-5 , you are adding another subsection to 9-5? MR. ISHIDA: Right. MR. SCHUTTE: That would be subsection (b) . MR. ISHIDA: No. The present paragraph would be subsection ( a) and there will be a new subsection (b) which I just read. MR. SCHUTTE: Wouldyou read that again. MR. ISHIDA: That is the one. . .The prosecuting attorney may appoint investigators who shall have all the powers and privileges of a police of the county. In support of my motion, I would just like to state that the prosecuting attorney did make this request and I feel that in order for his office to work more efficiently, :granting this authority to the office of the prosecuting attorney does not in any way allow him to be able to abuse that power, in my estimation. The charter just grants him this authority in there and if there are any other stricter require- ments that need necessarily be made as far as the investigator to be appointed, of course, that can be done by the council. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ono states in his testimony that this is already being done anyway and also is provided for in Section 62-78 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. It simply states that the county attorney may appoint an investigator who shall have the powers and privileges of a police officer of the county. He say „ we_already have a special investigator that is on the staff, again, this would just clarify what is already being done. MR. ISHIDA: Then what were-we arguing about? MR. OMONAKA: If it is there, we don ' t need an addition, an amendment. MR. SCHUTTE: May I make a comment on this? On this particular section that says the prosecutor may appoint investigators who shall have all the powers and privileges of a police officer of the county, you know, this gives him that supreme authority to do exactly that. It doesn 't necessarily say that any individual has to be a qualified police officer, or a qualified investigator. I think if you recall a year or two ago there was an individual---this is in regards to a case in Honolulu where an individual was appointed to the prosecutor' s staff as an investigator and if_I"..__am- not mistaken,- he -was -22- authorized, at that time, to carry a weapon and he was also involved with the underworld, and as such, he was still on the payroll of the prosecutor' s office. This strikes me as being the same situation. . . .It is nothing to hide, this individual was - an_investigator with the prosecutor's office and as a result he was authorized to carry a weapon. He was also involved, or had been convicted, and gone to court for some underworld activities, but he was hired by the prosecutor's office to act as an investigator, and as a result, they permitted him to carry a weapon. To me, it just seems like the same situation. . .it ' s very broad and does not clarify the qualifications of the individual. MR. ISHIDA: If he is already authorized to do this under the statutes, actually, we are just stating what he is authorized to do. MR. SCHUTTE: If that be the case, then it is " unnecessary to put it in the charter. MR. ISHIDA: If we are doing it we are trying to be consistent. It seems to me that everything that is housekeeping, that he is authorized to do, we have been always granting him in the charter, so I think maybe we should just leave it in the charter. But I don ' t think it deserves any further discussion. Why don 't we call for the question? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is to amend Section 9-5 with a new subsection (b) , right? MR. ISHIDA: Right, just for the amendment. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Then the intent of the motion is not to add more staff. So, they can ' t read into that and say that, okay, now that we have this, we can hire more bodies. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. The amdndment is merely for that one Section 9-5 , right? MR. ISHIDA: That' s right. It is just an amendment to the main motion., _ MR. CADINHA: Are we voting on the amendment or on the motion? MR. OMONAKA: Amendment, first. MR. ISHIDA: We are only voting on the amendment. MR. SCHUTTE: And the amendment is the addition. MR. ISHIDA: Right. -23- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any further discussion on this? Do you know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Kobayashi, Noes - Schutte, Iwamoto, Cadinha, Yanaga, Trulson, Ishida Omonaka, - 4 Sensano, Sakata Absent - Yagong - 6 - 1 Not carried. SECTION MR. ISHIDA: May I call for the question on 16: the main motion. Section 9-5 , 6 and 7. MR. OMONAKA: 9-7 has already been adopted on June 12. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So we are approving 9-5 and 9-6. Are you ready for the question? Do you know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Omonaka, Yanaga, Noes - None Sensano, Cadinha, Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Ishida, Schutte, - 1 Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. ARTICLE X: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Would it be possible to defer Article X and proceed on to on to Article XI? Article X is very extensive and to some of us, confusing., We may possibly request Mr. Nakamae to come back. There are- many points that need clarifying. I would like to go to Article XI and defer X. There are many things that perhaps counsel is going to have to help us on. MR. ISHIDA: I would like to second` that motion. MR. CADINHA: Discussion, Mr. Chairman. What. . . MR. TRULSON: To defer ,Article.'X and go on to Article XI and then come back to it. MR. CADINHA: When' do you propose we come back to it? MR. TRULSON: After page 42. CHAIRMAN SAKATA:. _It :,has been moved and seconded that we defer Article X and go on to Article XI. -24- MR. SCHUTTE: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are you ready for the question? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Cadinha, Schutte, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Ishida, Iwamoto, - 1 Kobayashi, Sakata - 10 Carried. ARTICLE XI : MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I believe, in regards to Article XI, the main concerns that were brought up to us during public hearings dealt with Section 11-2, Limitations to Powers. It would seem to me that most`of, the testimony, if any, was to delete the controls on what could be initiated or changed by the voters. MR. TRULSON: -Mr. -Chairman. In regards to Section 11-2,. I feel that those controls should be retained. There should be some control, I know there was some testimony as to the removal of the .entire section but I think there does have to be some control. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Akira, can I ask you the same question on this Section 11-2, if you can recall , why they wanted to have this limitation. MR. OMONAKA: Yes, because we were afraid that, you know, you can ' t go to the public on every issue, regarding taxes and stuff like that, and even myself, in the privacy of the voting booth, if they ask me to cut taxes, you know that in spite of the fact that I know government does need income, I think I would vote for cutting taxes, right? It is kind of a dangerous ;thing and we need to have responsible people running government. MR. ISHIDA: Was this the rationale, that they felt the citizenry was not competent to handle fiscal matters? MR. OMONAKA: Not incompetent, per se, but, you know, how can you run government if you set up and the people don ' t vote. . . MR. ISHIDA: As I understand it, the county, of course, will still be doing it, but in the event that citizenry would be unhappy or displeased with certain actions of the council pertaining to taxes and that they would be able to come up and initiate something to modify them. I am having a difficult time in my mind, to reconcile the fact that why the citizenry can be considered not competent, or, you know, not akamai enough to. . . MR. OMONAKA: It is not whether they are competent or akamai.. -25- • MR. ISHIDA: This is the thing I am not grasping. I just don ' t quite understand. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. In regards to what Richard is talking about, I have a tendency to lean towards Commissioner Omonaka and I don' t think it is a point of whether the general public is smart enough to understand it, but that as a general rule, an individual is not necessarily likely to be receptive to reality. In other words, if there are taxes that have to be assessed, if he has the option to say, I would rather not have taxes, he doesn ' t necessarily think of the problems that may exist by not having these taxes and as a result,. there would be more indication of him going in and as Mr. Omonaka says, and requesting this particular thing to be rejected in matters relative to budget or taxes, etc. I don ' t think it is a matter of whether they are smart enough but the normal individual, I think, wishes to accept what he wants to hear, not necessarily what is necessary. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I have given a lot of thought to this proposal. Being one that does not like big government to begin with, I can sympathize with a lot of the input that we have had, but I feel that our island economy is in a very formative stage. Right now, if you were to freeze all expenditures, you would see that Hilo has a greater amount of services, county services, available to its citizens than any other district, and that is, basically, because the vote has been here, and a lot of the revenues have been here. As our island grows, as different parts of the island become, more economically self-sustaining, ' and -become more important, there is going to be a need for really an investment, a long term investment of our county government in the way of governmental services to make these places grow and to nurture their growth. I am fearful that if you give the broad veto power against any further expenditure into the hands of the citizenry, a given district, or area, could just be stifled in terms of economic growth. Because, as I said, if you just stopped, rightriow, the citizens of Hilo would enjoy a much higher plane of governmental service than anyplace else. When you are looking at a lot of these services, there are investments over twenty years to help a given community and our governmental body may have to make those investments, may have some big decisions in terms of investing large amounts of money into some of the other areas of this island and they could be cut off at the pass and really hurt, the economic unit. So, I would prefer to see the financial and the fiscal completely left out of initiative and referendum. MR. SCHUTTE: Harlan, are you saying that you would like to see it left as it is? MR. CADINHA: Yes, that is right. Not included. MR. SCHUTTE: Is that a motion? MR. CADINHA: No, it is a statement of opinion. -26�- MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Then I would like to make the motion to accept Article XI in its entirety. MR. CADINHA: Discussion, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to consider recall? If we do, does it belong in here? MR. OMONAKA: That is another article. MR. CADINHA: Would that be a completely separate article? Judge Oda, if we do decide on a recall provision, where would it belong? MR. ODA: Maybe we should piggyback it to the impeachment provision. MR. OMONAKA: Harlan, why don ' t we just adopt this and in terms of style and content, if it is proper, we can have Stuart work it into the charter, someplace, MR. ODA: Since recall and impeachment are very similar. MR. CADINHA: You don ' t feel the necessity that it be drafted into this, along with Initiative and Referendum? That is not important. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chair an. Stuart, are you suggesting that if we do adopt recall that it could be put into one of the other sections? MR. ISHIDA: I think that if we do adopt recall, as to where it goes in the charter, I think we should leave it to legal counsel and see where it fits in. MR. SCHUTTE: Well, I think the original thing we were thinking about it was because Initiative and Referendum were comparable and I think Harlan ' s question was whether we consider recall, and if so, does it go in this particular section. MR. ISHIDA: I would assume that we can decide on this issue now and keep recall separate. If it is, in fact, adopted then we can just put it in where we think it is necessary. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Does Mr. Omonaka have a second to his motion? MR. CADINHA: I will second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we retain Article XI as is. MR. ISHIDA: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you understand the intent of the motion? -27- Ayes - Sensano, Omonaka, Noes - None Yanaga, Cadinha, Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Ishida, Schutte, - 1 Trulson, Sakata - - 10 Carried. RECALL: MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. For information purposes, except for the typewritten portion, most of the provisions were '-.aken out of the Maui charter. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, the typewritten portion, this is your own language that you have put in there. MR. ODA: Right. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda. How does the percentage of signatures. . .20%, is that what the other counties have? MR. ODA: They do have 20%. We put in there, who voted or who registered. It is a matter of choice for you folks. 20% is 5% more than the number of people in the Initiative and Referendum. I believe those provisions call for 15% to initiate or refer legislation. Frances and I were discussing the necessity of 20% for recall and the basic reason that I could come up with on the reason why it should be 20% rather than 15% or anything else ( 1 ) it seems like a nice figure (2 ) it should be a little more difficult to recall elective officials rather than initiate or refer legislation. The reason is when-you are recalling and doing away with somebody' s job, the impact of that thing on the individual, of course, is much greater and it is much greater and it should not be an easy process, by nature. It should not be made too simple, otherwise, everybody who is unhappy with you, you know, can initiate something for harrassment purposes. And, yet, there is a necessity for it, i suppose, depending on your viewpoint. The question is, at what point, what percentage is where you find a happy medium , not tomakeit too easy and yet, not too difficult, in terms of the registered voters. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that if we are going to have recall and a man has been elected to office and there is going to be a recall petition, it should, as Mr. Oda said, not be too easy to do. I would recemmend that 25% of the people who voted, not the registered voters, if you didn ' t vote, why should you be able to sign a petition for recall? It should be those who voted. That is my opinion. MR. ODA: By way of information, Mr. Chairman, for those of you are kind of wondering what the difference between this and impeachment is. Impeachment, as you will recall, is a procedure by which a_ certain percentage of people, a certain number of people, can file a suit in court to remove a public official. That is a court proceeding. Compared to recall, recall is strictly an administrative inhouse procedure -28- to remove an elective official. It is another way of doing it. In other words, if you have initiative, you also have refer- endum kind of thing. It is not necessarily the same thing but the result will be the same thing. That is what you are trying accomplish.to accom lish. To remove an elected official. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, in your impeachment, you say the court does it. In_ recall, who carries the axe? MR. ODA: Well, there would have to be a vigilante committee, if I can use that word. A group of people. . . MR. SCHUTTE: What you are saying then is that any group that can muster up, as you have it, 20% of the total number of persons who voted. . . MR. ODA: Or registered in the last district election, if it is a district councilman. Totally on the island, if it was a prosecutor, mayor, or at-large councilman. MR. SCHUTTE: That committee would have to get this started, but who enforces it? MR. ODA: It will be through the county clerk ' s office. They would have to check the validity and the accuracy of the signatures and whether they are, in fact, voters or registered, who were registered and actually voted. They would have to check that out. They would have a certain number of days in which to do that kind of thing and mandate i t. MR. SCHUTTE : Then would you have to change subsection (a) because you have it almost specific here. . . recall of an official elected at-large„by voters of the entire county. We are looking at districts. . MR. ODA: Yes, I have subsection (b) over there for that purpose. MR. SCHUTTE: I see. Okay. MR. TRULSON: I feel with raising the percentage to 25% of the total number of persons who voted that, along with the last section on page 1 , I think it would be a deterrent to harrassment. It is not going to be an easy thing that someone can do on a whim. You must have 25% of the people who voted and 50% of the people who voted must vote in the recall election, as I read this. Is that interpretation correct, Stuart? MR. ODA: I think so, yes. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Trulson, what you are saying then is to increase the percentage to 25% and omit the registered voters and just have voters? -29- MR. TRULSON: Right, 25% of the total number of persons who voted, and with that change I would like to make a motion that we accept recall as submitted. And every area where that is necessary to change it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Then you don ' t want the 50%. . . MR. TRULSON: I 'm referring to the top section. Section (a) and (b) wherever it says 20%, it should say 25% as the total number of persons who voted. MR. SCHUTTE: Omit the word, registered. MR. TRULSON: With those changes, I move to accept this proposal on recall. MR. SCHUTTE: I second it. MR. TRULSON: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt this proposal on recall , deleting the word,; /registered7 in subsection (a) and (b) and changing the/20%7 to 25%.;of all persons who voted. MR. ',ISHIDA:. Discussion,, Mr. Chairman. If we say that 25% of those who voted. . .do you feel that it is more difficult than 25% or 20% of registered voters? Or is that not taken into consideration. It is my assumption that generally you have 70-80% of registered voters, voting. . .and if you take 25% of that, that doesn ' t come close. I don ' t think that comes close to 20% of the registered voters. MR. TRULSON: Well, my idea was. . . MR. ISHIDA: I understand that position, the only thing I 'm saying is you also consider that it should be difficult to initiate the petition, but, to me, you may, in fact, be making it easier to initiate the petition by 25% of those who voted, by restricting it only to those who voted. MR. TRULSON: By raising it from 20% to 25% and making it to the person who voted, I am getting to the same point that I don' t feel if I am a registered voter, I should go out and vote and of the man who is the office who should get out of there, if I didn ' t vote him in or out, I shouldn 't now have the chance to. . .that is just my personal feelings. MR. ISHIDA: I go along with that. . . MR. TRULSON: It should be difficult, but not impossible. We are making it difficult with the other section where 50% of the people must vote. MR. CADINHA: Recall has to win the election, in other words. MR. TRULSON: Pardon? -30- MR. CADINHA: Recall simply has to win the special election, in other words. If you are talking about 50%, basically, the recall motion has to win the recall election. MR. OMONAKA: So, if you don' t get 50%, the recall is lost. MR. CADINHA: Right. What Richard is saying, is what is the intent of. . . MR. TRULSON: Well, he is saying perhaps. . . MR. CADINHA: Is the intent to make it harder or is the intent. . . MR. TRULSON: One point is harder and the other seems to make it easier. In my mind, I have compromised by raising the 20% to 25%. MR. OMONAKA: Richard is suggesting that 25% may be easier than 20% of registered and voters would be. MR. CADINHA: Perhaps the verbiage you want is "the greater of the two'. " MR. ISHIDA: I 'm with you, I think we should have a recall but I think we should make it difficult. I think it should be there in the event of an extreme kind of situation it should be available but I was just thinking the 25% your way might be making it easier than the 20%. MR. CADINHA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trulson, could you live with 25% of the registered voters? MR. TRULSON: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would amend my motion to read 25% of the registered voters. MR. CADINHA: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we amend the proposal to 25% of the registered voters. MR. ISHIDA: On the 50% thing, is the motion to be 50% voters who voted or registered voters? MR. TRULSON: It would have to follow that they would have to be registered_in :every_"instance. . It would have to conform. My motion would be to delete - the word voted and leave registered. I amended the motion. MRS. KOBAYASHI : May I just ask a general question? Why was recall not included in this_present charter? MR. OMONAKA: We had some discussion, but I can 't remember what it was. -31- MR. CADINHA: May I have a little discussion, Mr. Chairman. I 'm not sure about this verbiage, I have to read this closely, but, as it reads now, you could end up with a 50-50. . .hypothetically, you could end up with a tie, couldn 't you? MR. OMONAKA: A tie vote is not recall. MR. CADINHA: No, it says here if less than 50% of the total number of persons. . . MR. SENSANO: 50% of the registered voters have to cast their ballots, then they take the majority of those who voted. MR. TRULSON: It says if less than 50%. MR. CADINHA: Then recall loses. MR. ODA: If you have 100 voters, and you have 49, for recall, then it is defeated. MR. CADINHA: If you have 50 for recall, it ' s recall. MR. ODA: it is recall. So long as it is 50. MR. ISHIDA: But it is the majority. MR. CADINHA: No, if there ' 100 votes cast, _ it' s 50. So it' s less than a majority, less than a ,clear�majority can. . . MR. SENSANO: What I understand here is if you have 100 voters altogether, registered. . .50' of them must cast their ballots, then of the 50 who cast their ballots they take the majority. MR. ISHIDA: That is how I interpret it. MR. ODA: You have to have at least 50%. . MR. ISHIDA: And of those votes cast", the majority controls, right? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt the-,recall proposal and to change the subsection (a) and (b) from 20% to 25% total number of persona_ who regi.s.tered in the last general election. Also on the next page, 50% of the persons who registered, not voted/registered. Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None. Ishida, Sensano, Omonaka, Trulson, Absent - Yagong Yanaga, Iwamoto, -adia, Sakata 10 7c1— 5 c- k rrr Carried. -32- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I presume counsel will make the necessary. .will locate this section wherever appropriate. The impeachment section is Article XIII, Section 13-28. MR. Chairman, I so move that this section on recall be known as Article XIII, Section 13-29. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Clarification. Has Article XI in its entirety been approved? Or just Section 11-2? MRS. KOBAYASHI: The whole thing was. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes. I asked the question, previously, but I would like the authority of this commission to renumber,- and to relocate sections, as may be necessary. I know we are kind of doing this kind of hastily and on reflection, it may be necessary to switch around, where we locate, what number we give the sections, and all that. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I remove my motion. MR. ODA: Just in case. MR. ISHIDA: We can always adopt it after you revise it. MR. ODA: I don ' t want to be boxed in, that is what I am saying. ARTICLE XII : MR, ISHIDA: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Legal 'counsel, what does this Article XII encompass? MR. ODA: I haven 't had a chance to check on it, but I believe it was enacted. Improvements by special assessments, from my understanding of it, this one here refers to water improvement districts where you make special assessments to fund water lines, etc. , under the control of the Department of Water Supply. We didn ' t anticipate getting this far, but as I say, we will have to check on whether this provision was in fact enacted. I believe it was but just to be sure I think we would like a chance to check it out. If it was enacted, this provision is no longer really necessary. MR. CADINHA: Stuart, could you also check insofar as scope. . .whether it is water, water and sewer, or. . . MR. ODA: We will get a copy of the ordinance. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to move to reconsider regarding Article XI. Could somebody second the motion so we can discuss? -33- MRS. KOBAYASHI: I second. MR. CADINHA: Would you explain, please? MR. TRULSON: We have a letter from Mr. Legaspi regarding Section 11-5 where he requests that we add a subsection to read as follows: (a) (4) Each elector signing such petition shall print his name, add his signature, his residence address, his social security number and date of signing on said petition. The rationale for that is that the County Clerk must within twenty days after the filing of the initiative or referendum petition complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition. The printing of the petitioners names and the inclusion of the social security number will enhance and expedite the certification processes. MR. CADINHA: I second the motion. MR. ISHIDA: Did you second the motion to reconsider? MR. TRULSON: Now I would like to move that that be adopted. MR. OMONAKA: Why don ' t we vote to reconsider and then discuss it. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I haven ' t seen the petition that is going around now but I would assume that the form has all these things? Or does the form allow for these things? It just has a name and address? MR. CADINHA: Question on the reconsideration. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Omonaka, Trulson, Absent - Yagong Ishida, Yanaga, - 1 Sensano, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. TRULSON: I would like to make the motion to add that provision that I read. That would be subsection ( a) to 11-5 , subparagraph (4) Each elector signing such petition shall print his name, acid his signature, his residence address, his social security number and date of signing on said petition. MR. CADINHA: I second. -34- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the proposal of the County Clerk of adding a new subsection ( a) , subparagraph (4) under Section 11-5 . Is there ;,any other discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Omonaka, Sensano, Noes - None Ishida, Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Cadinha, Absent - Yagong Trulson, Yanaga, - 1 Schutte, Sakata -10 Carried. ARTICLE XII : MR. SCHUTTE: Was Article XII ever worked on? Stuart, you are asking that we defer it? Okay. RECALL: MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I hate to go through two motions for reconsideration, so before I make a motion, can I suggest that in view of the amendment that we just adopted, the recall provision,` to be consistent, I think, should have a similar provision added to the relevant section. If we have general consensus on this from everybody, I think, we can do it that way. Sincewe did it for the initiative, we have to also do it for the recall, just to be consistent. I don 't know if it is legal , I would like to just ask that the relevant section which was just adopted for the initiative be placed in the correct provision; by legal counsel, in the recall provision. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, that would take in the section that you have involving signatures. Would that be the proper place? Is a motion necessary to give you that authority to change that? I so move. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that legal counsel shall adopt the proper language under signatures to be consistent with what has been proposed under Section 11-5. . .new subsection ( a) , subparagraph (4) . Do you understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Ishida, Absent - Yagong Schutte, Cadinha, - 1 Sensano, Sakata- -10 Carried. RECESS: At 5 : 15 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 5 : 30 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. -35- MR. ODA: Before we proceed any further and before I forget, since the recall provision was adopted, perhaps there should be a motion by a commission member to add the words you remember in the mayor, the councilman, and the prosecuting attorney, there is a provision that says they can be removed by impeachment as provided by this charter. . .there should be added, impeachment or recall. The words , or recall , be added, as provided by this charter. MR. TRULSON: I so move. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we add the words, or recall, to the impeachment provisions as provided by this charter. MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi , Iwamoto, - 1 Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. ARTICLE XIII : MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move we adopt Section 13-1 , Definitions , as stated without amendment. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. Regarding subsection (e) there is some problem with that. I 'm not sure whether the definition of "district" is necessary. As worded, right there, it is, I think, misleading since we are using representative districts. MR. SCHUTTE : What is your suggestion, Stuart? MR. ISHIDA: Do we need the definition in here now? It seems to me that we were kind of specific. MR. ODA: I would think so. I am just wondering whether we even need that. My feeling is that we probably don 't need a definition of district. I think they included that the last time,probably, because they wanted to be sure it did not mean representative district, for that purpose, alone. But, since we are, now, using State House Representative Districts, etc. , and are defining it quite. specifically, I really don ' t see the need for that provision. MR. SCHUTTE: Are you suggesting, right now, that we delete that particular subsection? -36- MR. ODA: I would so recommend. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I move then to delete subsection (e) of Section 13-1, Definitions and accept the balance of that section as written. MR. TRULSON: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-1, Definitions deleting subsection (e) and retain the balance. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I have a notation here, (g) the definition of vacancy. MR. OMONAKA: The definition has been adopted already. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion. Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Ishida, Iwamoto, Noes —None Cadinha, Kobayashi, Schutte, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-2: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move we adopt Section 13-2, as is. MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-2, as is. Any discussion? MR. YANAGA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Sensano, Noes - None Omonaka, Trulson, Yanaga, Ishida, Absent - Yagong Cadinha, Kobayashi , - 1 Iwamoto, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-3 : MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept Section 13-3, as is. MR. ISHIDA: Second. -37- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-3, as is. Any discussion. MR. CADINHA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Iwamoto, Kobayashi , Noes - None Schutte, Ishida, Cadinha, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-4: MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 13-45 _Boards and Commissions. . . . _ _ _ _ MR. ISHIDA: General question. On the boards and commissions that we have, so far, adopted and approved, do we have any with 9 members? Planning is nine? Water Board is seven. MR. OMONAKA: Appeal Board is seven. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Discussion on this Section, Boards and Commissions. The term of office. .the term of being a commission is five years, according to this charter. Given a mayoral term of four years, which our mayor is elected to, five year terms for commissioners make it pretty difficult for the mayor to change the complexion of a=-commission. I would think that since he is appointing the commissioners, that perhaps, he should have a little more control over the direction of the commissions. I would like some discussion on the subject of, maybe, a three year term. Five being rather long. The other thing in this section that I think we should look at and consider is , especially with the Planning Commission, no one can serve two terms. Perhaps in a specialized area like planning where you have a good commissioner, you should leave the door open for reappointment, but no more than two terms, if we are going to cut the length of the term. Those are considerations that I have and I would like some feedback from the other commissioners as to their feelings, pro or con. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I started to make a motion but I shall refrain from doing so since we are having questions on portions of this. . . MR. CADINHA: For information sake, excuse me, Mr. Schutte. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Thank you.. Subsecti.on,,:(b) . . .The members appointed by the mayor, with the approval of the council, -38- may be removed upon recommendation by the mayor and the approval of the council. I think in all these other commissions we have, they don ' t need the recommendation, or the approval of the council. That portion, i believe, will have to be changed. MR. ISHIDA: I think all commission members require council approval. We didn 't change that. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, but, remove upon recommendation by the mayor and the approval of the council. We have changed that to read that they may be approved by the council but removed by the mayor. MR. ISHIDA: That is department heads. MR. SCHUTTE: I would think that this is not consistent then. MR. ISHIDA: No, I think it is, consistent. If I can say something on that. I think commission members are not directly accountable to the mayor. They have an independent - 7- ry-77 , position , and this is why, I think, the removal requires action MR. SCHUTTE: But didn ' t we just last week decide that that wasn 't so, or am I wrong? MR. ISHIDA: Department heads, yes. MR. SCHUTTE: No, I am talking about the executive branch, departments or agencies under commissions. Didn ' t we discuss something relative to that? MR. ISHIDA: Not the removal of commissioners. The Planning Director. The Planning Director, as -originally stated, to be removed, requires council approval. Even corporation counsel, originally. In the present charter, for removal, it requires the approval of the council. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cadinha, if we reduce the term there will be staggered terms of five years. Like in a commission composed of five commissioners, there is only one that has a term of five years. By the way I read this. . . .Upon the initital appointment of the members of a commission consisting of five members, one shall be appointed for term of one year, one for a term of two years, one for a term of three years, one for a term of four years, and one for a term of five years. MR. CADINHA: Well, this was initially, my interpretation so, now, I say, this was when the charter was new, so, now, that any time one comes up for appointment, he or she gets a five year appointment. That was initially to get the staggering. -39- MR. TRULSON: So,now, every commissioner who comes in, comes in for five years. What was your recommendation as to the length of terms? MR. CADINHA: Well, three years. I ' ll tell you why, on a five year term basis, the mayor being elected for four, he would appoint four commissioners during his length of office, appointing the fourth in his last year. On a four year term, he still appoints four commissioners to any specific commission, appointing the fourth, the last year. Then the fifth year, he gets two appointments, if he is reelected, he begins to change the complexion. Under a three year term for commissioners, a mayor will, within his time frame, appoint five within in his term of office. Whether this has any importance to the other commissioners, or not, I don ' t know, but I feel that in the structure of a strong mayor government, he should have some ability to color, if you will, the commissions to his managerial style. With a five year time frame for commissioners, it becomes a little more difficult. It ' s a thought, you know, I just throw that out because I would like some other feelings on it. MR. OMONAKA: Does it mean that, as far as you are concerned, that subparagraph ( f) should be deleted? MR. CADINHA: Subparagraph ( f)? MR. OMONAKA: . . .Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, not more than a bare majority of the members shall belong to the same political party. If I follow what you are trying to say and he is trying to get the people more in tune to what he wants, then, obviously, if you belong to another party, it is not. . . MR. CADINHA: Not necessarily a political party. Well , I am not sure how that would be put, there. I was thinking if you appointed a new mayor with programs that were based on a change in a department that was run by a commission and if he had a completelyalien commission to his cause, he would be out of control. MR. OMONAKA: The concept, then, for the commissions that can adopt rules and regulations, should not have any mayoral influence. The idea is the lay guy is supposed to sit down and develop the rules and regulations, that is the concept as far as commissions are concerned. Why don ' t you just let the mayor adopt rules and regulations, then? MR. CADINHA: Because I think there is a buffer. I think like all of us are reviewing the charter, why don ' t the councilmen and the mayor rewrite the charter? We are a appointed body, we all have our own minds, I think this is the purpose of a commission, but, we still say that the Police Commission and the Police Department are under the general supervision and control of the mayor. Well, how else, other -40- than by somehow tainting or controlling the commission , is the mayor going to exert any control? MR. OMONAKA: I go along with what Stuart said earlier in terms of control. Not direct control , but, at least, some kind of handle in the department, in terms of emergencies and stuff like that, the mayor has got to have his control of the department. But, not to get involved in the actual day-to-day operations, or not to adopt rules and regulations for the Police Department. This is not my under- standing of administrative control. MR. CADINHA: I am not suggesting that he get involved in the day-to-day dealings with the department. MR. OMONAKA: So if you are talking operational control, then this should be left up to the Police Commission, you know, by lay people. MR. CADINHA: I am not saying anything else, I agree to that, too. All I am suggesting is that perhaps we should limit commissioners to a shorter length of stay than five years. That if one was underperforming, or if was really philosophically anti where the administration was, the mayor, at least, has a little more recourse over a given timetable of his term to somehow influence more. Now, whether we want to do that as a commission, or not, is up to everybody, but it seems inconsistent to have a strong mayor concept of government with four year elected terms and a five year term for commissioners. MR. ISHIDA: What was the rationale for five year terms, one _ _- - _ MR. OMONAKA: I look back and see, you know, if people serve two years like that, it would be pretty hard to get--say even serving on the Water Board and how complex operation gets, in terms of two years, it does nobody justice. MR. ISHIDA: I think it has to be a good length of time. Why did they limit it to one term. MR. OMONAKA: We didn ' t want the people to just serve perpetually 'on the commission. Any one group or body who continuously serves as Police Commissioners, for example, that is not right. MR. ODA: It may have been a matter of convenience, on top of whatever reasons. If you wanted to stagger the terms and you start with Live commission members, you give one, one year; the second one, two years, etc. That is a simple mathematical way of handling it. MRS. KOBAYASHI: Mr. Chairman. On a practical basis, I think I would agree with Harlan 's idea for a three year term. For one thing, commissioners are not paid; in two years maybe you learn the job--it takes two years to learn-- when you think that you have to accept to serve as a commissioner, and that is a public service, that you have to serve for five years, which is longer than the mayor serves and almost three -41- times as long as some of the district councilmen serve, I agree, _it doesn ' t seem to be fair. Maybe, if you were paid, then five years would be worth it. Shortening the terms might give more people a chance to ,serve on commissions as well. You could look at it that wy, too. In reality, I realize that most appointments to commissions are political appointments. You could look at it that you could pay your political debts easier because the commissions don 't, serve as long. MR. OMONAKA: Fish, may I ask you a question? You served on the Police Commission for five years. What did you think about that five year term? MR. YANAGA: Five years was alright as far as I am concerned. MRS. KOBAYASHI : You think three years is too short, then? MR. YANAGA: Too short, yes. Unless like-- correct me, Harlan, if I am wrong--did you mention that they can serve two terms? MR. CADINHA: Yes, I am suggesting that if we shorten the term, we open it up for reappointment, so a person could serve six years in a capacity, if his appointor, the mayor and he felt that everything was fine and that he liked what he was doing and he was doing a good job. He could go six years, really, at two terms. MR. YANAGA: That is for all the commissions, not in certain departments only. MR. CADINHA: No, this would be in respect to all of them. But, I was thinking specifically of planning, you know, where if you had a good commissioner, they are hard to come by, and if you had a good commissioner and he became knowledgeable, you would hate to have him canned after three years and on further thought, I think it stands true of all the commissions. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman. Harlan, in regards to these numbers of terms, and so forth, shouldn 't, it be -necessary to streamline these commissions? Right now there is only one that is consisting of nine, the Planning Commission. Everything else is seven and we have one with five. If you are talking about a nine member commission, again, with two for-a term of five years. . . .commissions stand at seven, right now, anyway and this would be the only one that is different. The reference is made to Section 5-4.3. It says, the commission membership shall be representative of the community and of the county geographical areas of Puna, Ka'u, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo, which is only six. Then they give the chief engineer of the county and the manager of the department of water supply. . .ex-officio members of the -42- commission without power to vote. But you only have, six geographical areas and we are talking about a nine member commission. . . MR. YANAGA: Under this charter setup now, anybody that serves below two years, can be appointed again. MR. CADINHA: Anybody who serves below two? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cadinha, do you have a motion on the floor? MR. CADINHA: No,I don ' t, I 'm just discussing. I am just throwing out another slant on the whole thing to see how it floats. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Cadinha, if no commission had more than seven members and each commissioner--well, they are all on staggered terms--so in your idea then, if there was a seven board commission. . .the mayor ' s term is four years, if there were four year terms for the board, he would elect four in his term, right? MR. CADINHA: Would you rephrase the question again? MR. TRULSON: If the terms for the commissioners was four years, he would then, in fact, be appointing the majority of that commission. .If there were no commission larger than seven, he would. MR. CADINHA: Four is the number, right® He would-be appointing a much clearer cut majority. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I believe that the way it is setup, it is okay. i _don' t know how serious the problem is, but I was talking to a former member of a commission and he said that he was supposed to have been appointed in January and they didn ' t appoint him until the middle of the year. Would reducing the terms of commissioners aggravate the problem of the mayor making appointments? I don ' t know. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. May I makethe suggestion that we recess for dinner and perhaps with a full stomach, we will be able to resolve this question. MR. ISHIDA: Legal counsel , does subsection (a) need to be revised? MR. ODA: I think we no longer have staggered terms. That language in there appeared to be for the initial appointment only. MR. TRULSON: In that case, if it is no longer staggered, it wouldn ' t make any difference how long the terms were for. MR. OMONAKA: it just keeps going. -43- MR. ODA: It is being staggered because the initial group of people were staggered, so any appointees after that would be staggered. MR. SENSANO: At no time would you have all new commissioners. MR. ODA: What I am saying is the words "initial" that kind of thing. But that is housekeeping stuff. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I was just checking the charters and both Honolulu and Maui have five year terms. And they are all staggered terms, MR. CADINHA: I just. . .I 'm sorry, I didn ' t mean to bog down the Charter review, but it was a thought that I had and I just wanted to share iL. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Don ' t feel too badly. I would say just redo it. Set it all up one way. Go a straight 7 member commission. MR. ISHIDA: In view of Mrs. Tabrah ' s testimony, do we want to do anything with Subsection ( f)? MR. TRULSON: No. MR. ISHIDA: I just thought I would bring it up. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. There is cne other thing that was brought up and that was by the Hawaii Chamber, the Japanese Chamber, and the Hilo Contractors ' Association. That is boards and commissions. They are requesting a provision that would provide that a person ' s occupation, profession, or business shall not in itself be a bar to someone serving on any board or commission of the County of Hawaii. MR. OMONAKA: There is no prohibition, now. MR. TRULSON: Evidently, they feel there is. MR. ODA: That is relevant to the Board of Ethics, I think. MR. TRULSON: I believe they were also talking about the Planning Commission having realtors. . .that is not in the charter, but, evidently there is. . .I don 't know whether it is an unwritten law, or what it is, but that was brought up by those three organizations, for our consideration. That would be a new subsection under 13-4. MR. SCHUTTE : Bud, are you asking that that be put in as. . . MR. TRULSON: No, no, I 'm just bringing it to the attention of the commission for their consideration. It is not a motion. -43- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, you suggested that subsection ( a) of 13-4 be deleted. MR. ODA: No, no, I am not saying that. I would have to look into it. I hesitate to say that it should be deleted. I think it, possibly, needs some work on it in terms of language, but I don ' t have any proposed rephrasing right now. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. In an effort to move along perhaps we should defer 13-4 subsection (a) and go on to the next one. Perhaps we can have language by counsel by next week. MR. CADINHA: I will move that we limit the term for Commissioners to three years for all commissions. Also that commissioners be eligible for two terms, a maximum to serve two terms as commissioners. MR. OMONAKA: Consecutive terms. MR. CADINHA: Consecutive terms. MRS. KOBAYASHI: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that all commissions have three year terms with a limit of two consecutive terms as a maximum. Any further discussion? MR. CADINHA: That would take us through (c) . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: "Subsection (a) , (b) , and (c) . MR. CADINHA: The actual structure can be if we vote in principle and I think one way or the other Stuart can draft the verbiage, right? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Now we are on 13-4, subsection (a) , (b) , and (c) , ;Mr. Cadinha? MR. CADINHA: That is correct. That is where the changes would occur. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we have all commissioners serve for three years and two consecutive terms© MR. CADINHA: No, eligible for two consecutive terms. They MAY be appointed for two terms. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: . . .they may be appointed for two consecutive terms. MRS. KOBAYASHI : A point of clarification. The most that a commissioner could serve would be six years. And, if he was serving somebody else's two year term, that would be two plus if he were reappointed, then it would be a five year term? -44- MR. CADINHA: That would be eight years under the proposal. MR. ODA: It depends on when he gets on. MRS. KOBAYASHI : If you were serving a remaining term and you were appointed twice, right? MR. CADINHA: Consecutive appointments, period. Whether it is a half-term, partial term, or full term. Let' s do it that way. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - Ishida, Iwamoto, Schutte, Sensano, Trulson, Sakata Omonaka, - 6 Yanaga, - 4 Absent - Yagong - 1 Carried. MR. ISHIDA: In view of that vote, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we refer that entire section to legal counsel for redrafting. MR. ODA: Is that (a) , (b) , and (c) ? MR. CADINHA: 13-4, completely, Richard? Isn ' t that what you are saying? MR. TRULSON: Is there any discussion on the proposed subsection for the Chambers? MR. ISHIDA: I would think that that subject matter should be taken care of in the Code of Ethics provision. I _ think, that is what they were concerned about. MR. TRULSON: They specifically mentioned Section 13-4, Boards and Commissions. MR. ISHIDA: I know they mentioned the section, but I think the Code of Ethics, Standards should be applicable. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Then I would like to move that we adopt Section 13-5 , as is. MR. ISHIDA: I made the :suggest. ori-that_ we defer that section until legal counsel redrafts it. MR. SCHUTTE: The entire.,Section -13? __ MR. ISHIDA: Yes, until he redrafts it There may be some ramifications in there, too, you know. -45- MR. CADINHA: I second your motion to defer. MR. OMONAKA: From (d) then? MR. ISHIDA: Yes, the entire Section 13-4. MR. SCHUTTE: The entire Section 13, or just 13-4? „ MR. ISHIDA: 13-4. MR. SCHUTTE: That is what I just said, and you said, no, the entire section. MR. ISHIDA: I 'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you, MR. OMONAKA: Why don't we go down from (d) all the way down and see if we do have a consensus, and if we don ' t, whatever intent we want, maybe Mr. Oda can develop that. MR. ISHIDA: That' s fine, sure, go ahead. MR. TRULSON: You will have to withdraw your motion. MR. ISHIDA: I actually didn ' t make a motion, did I? MR. TRULSON: He seconded it. MR. ISHIDA: He seconded a motion that was not made. MR. TRULSON: You guys from Kona stick together so close. MR. ISHIDA: No, we vote against each other. I withdraw. MR. OMONAKA: I so move for the adoption of point (d) down to ( j ) . MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt subsection (d) through ( j ) . Any discussion? MR. SCHUTTE: Discussion. Stuart, in order for you to take care of this other portion of Section 13-4, is it necessary that we leave out the balance of that section and allow you to do the whole thing? MR. ODA: I would like to have the entire section to work with. MR. SCHUTTE: Then it should be considered that the entire Section 13-4 be deferred. -46- MR. ODA: Right. MR. SCHUTTE : I move to amend the motion to defer Section 13-4 until counsel has a chance to go over the language of the entire section. MR. ODA: I 'm sorry, I don 't mean to mislead you. I don ' t mean to say that, necessarily, there is any bad language in the remaining sections or anything like that. MR. SCHUTTE: All I am giving you is the authority or the opportunity to go ahead and redo that whole section, instead of taking a piece and voting from (d) to (j ) , you know. MR. ODA: If this commission adopts that latter part, if there is anything that comesup that requires some changes in language, then it could be redone next week. MR. SCHUTTE: Why not just leave it as it is until you come up with the language for it? MR. OMONAKA: Upon what basis are you going to work on? You can work on the basis of what we have adopted on that three year maximum, and six year maximum term, but you have to know the intent of the rest of it. MR. ODA: That is what I am leading up to, yes. MR. OMONAKA: So, if we adopt the rest and if there is conflict with what you are going to do with the early part which we adopted, then you can come back and if this thing doesn ' t jibe, you can make the corrections that way. MR. ODA: Either way. MR. SCHUTTE: We still have an amendment to the motion then, on the entire Section 13-4, submitting it to legal counsel for language. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 13-4 in its entirety be deferred to legal counsel for language. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. May I ask Kalani- a question? Is it your intent that Stuart draft the entire thing as he sees fit or. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Akira, all I am saying is that it seems that he is looking at this staggered terms, etc. , so my question to him is, if you left that entire section open over the balance that you have suggested that we vote on, if we did vote -on it, would that have the tendency to affect the portions that are brought up, or change the language on them. If so, why not defer it until next week when he does -47- come up with the proper language and if the balance, we feel, should be left as is, we can vote on it at that particular time. MR. OMONAKA: So you are asking him to prepare language only to cover up to point (c) of this 13-4? MR. SCHUTTE : I am asking that it be deferred allowing him the opportunity to change the language that was requested in the other motion and look at the balance of it to see if after changing the initial language the balance had to be changed to go along with it. In other words, we are asking him for an opinion on whether it is necessary. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I don' t understand. Kalani, I see Akira' s concern. I think if we can, somehow, pass on the intent of (d) through ( j ) and that we are in agreement that members should be appointed annually; that a bare majority of the members shall belong to the same political party, all these kinds of things, rather than leaving. . .if we agree insofar as the intent of each of those subsections, Stuart can redraft accordingly. I think what Akira is- looking for is let ' s cross these bridges, philosophically, and make sure that we like or don ' t like these things. His motion to vote on it I took it as to be a vote of the intent behind these things and then Stuart can encompass that into proper language. MR. SCHUTTE: My only question to Stuart ,was, in response to that, you know, if the rest of this wasn ' t voted on, would it be easier? His reply was that it could be done either way but if we left it open prior to him going over it and then it could be voted on. Isn ' t that correct? MR. ISHIDA: Maybe you could clarify it for them. MR. ODA: I would obviously need the intent of the commissioners as to which way I should go. I said what I said, previously, based on what was already said by Mr. Omonaka. I didn ' t think that there was anything that needed to be surgically removed or otherwise changed in the remaining section. MR. SCHUTTE : That was my reason for the amendment because I assumed that it might have to be done. MR. ODA: Offhand, I don' t see any necessity. I don 't know. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Whose motion is on the floor? MR. SCHUTTE: Mine. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we defer Section 13-4 in its entirety, submitting to legal counsel for proper language, if necessary. Are you ready for the question? -48- Ayes - Sensano, Schutte, Noes - Omonaka, Trulson, Sakata Cadinha, - 4 Yanaga, Kobayashi, Not carried. Iwamoto, Ishida - 6 Absent - Yagong - 1 MR. SCHUTTE: Let' s call for a question on the main motion. MR. CADINHA: That we approve in concept (d) through ( j ) , is that right, Mr. Omonaka? MR. OMONAKA: And should there be any conflict between what we adopted earlier, it is to authorize Stuart to prepare the necessary language to correct it. MR. CADINHA: Was there a second? MR. OMONAKA: Yes, because the amendment was voted on. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - Schutte - 1 Sensano, Cadinha, Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong_ Ishida, Sakata, Omonaka - 9 Carried. MR. ODA: Is the matter of staggered terms to be included in the draft? You mentioned years, only, in your motion. Three years. MR. CADINHA: To continue, except the new appointments would have a three year term. Stagger them. MR. ODA: You did intend staggered terms? MR. CADINHA: Correct. RECESS: At 6:25 p.m. the Chair` called for a dinner recess. RECONVENE: At 7: 25 p.m. the meeting was i°econvened. -49- SECTION 13-5 : MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept Section 13-5 , as is. MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 13-5 be approved, as is. Any discussion? MR. OMONAKA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Sensano, Cadinha, Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Ishida, Schutte, - 1 Omonaka, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-6: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 13-6 be accepted, as is. MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 13-6 be approved, as is. MR. SENSANO: Correction of the word "ordinance." CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 13-6,as is, with the correction of the word "ordinance" which is spelled incorrectly in the present charter. Any further discussion on this? Do you understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Sensano, Trulson, Absent - Yagong Yanaga, Omonaka, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-7: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move we accept Section 13-7, as is. MRS. IWAMOTO, I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 13-7, as is. Any discussion? Do you understand the intent of the motion? -50- Ayes - sensano, Omonaka, Noes - None Trulson, Yanaga, Cadinha, Kobayashi, Absent - Yagong Iwamoto, ishida, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-8: MR. TRULSON: I move we accept Section 13-8, as is. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 13-8, as is. Any discussion? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. What is the meaning of this particular section? MR. ISHIDA: The mayor appoints the department heads and the department heads' terms automatically terminates when the mayor' s term terminates. However, there is a proviso,' there-that says that he will continue in office until a successor is appointed. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Then this does not mean that at the time the mayor' s term ends, the department heads have to . . .is this where they have to submit letters of resignation? They don ' t have to. MR. SCHUTTE: It states that, but then it also states a provision. . .provided that where a successor has not been appointed and qualified a department head, deputy or assistant, as the case may be, shall continue. . .so, Fuke is an exception® MR. ODA: Normally, they would require a courtesy resignation. MRS. KOBAYASHI : So why do they have the "provided"? MR. ODA: Because he can take and switch back and forth. MR. ISHIDA: Actually, it really doesn ' t make that much of a difference, you know, because what we have done, the mayor can remove at his whim. If there is a new mayor coming in, ,and the former department _ heads do not resign, he can just fire them. So, actually, I was kind of skeptical about putting a limited time on it, but I guess it doesn ' t make that much difference. We had this problem in the Corporation Counsel and the Planning Director but I don ' t think we have that problem now. I think it' s okay. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion now? -51- Ayes - Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Noes - None Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Yanaga, Absent - Yagong Trulson, Omonaka, - 1 Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-9: MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Question to counsel. Would you explain this section? The non-civil - service status, doesit have; anything to do with the implementation of the original implementation of this charter? MR. ODA: It seems to me like a continuing provision. Many of these provisions say, from and after the effective date of this charter. MR. TRULSON: Could it possibly be because there are still some commissioners, like on the Liquor Board who are not under Civil Service, still from the old regime, right? MR. ODA: Right. MR. TRULSON: Could that have to do with this particular section? MR. ODA: I really dont see. . . MR. TRULSON: Well, would this particular section affect him, if we left it the way it was, if we didn ' t change it? Deleted it? I believe there is only one gentleman, Mr. Kuniyoshi, right? He is grandfathered„ right? MR. SCHUTTE: In fact, I believe he is the only one. MRS. IWAMOTO: There are two,on the liquor, Kuniyoshi and the personnel, =Ed ° Silva. MR. SCHUTTE: So this would have to stand then, Mr. Oda? Mr. Chairman, I move that Section 13-9 be approved, as is. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded Section 13-9 be approved, as is. Any other discussion? Do you understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Iwamoto, Ishida, Noes - None Schutte, Yanaga, Trulson, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi , Cadinha, - 1 Omonaka, Sakata - 10 Carried.. . -52- SECTION 13-10: MR. YANAGA: Mk. Chairman. I move that we accept Section 13-10, as is. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I believe we would have to change the name, Director of Personnel Services to the Civil Service Director or Director of Civil Services, in paragraph 2, second to the last line. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do I hear a second to the motion? MR. SENSANO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Yanaga, your motion was to include the change from Director of Personnel Services to Director of Civil Services, right? MR. YANAGA: Right. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-10. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Discussion. Stuart, on 13-10, that first paragraph where it says. . .no person who seeks appointment or promotion. . .and it goes on to say. . .shall directly or indirectly give, render or pay any money. . .you know, relative to an appointment or promotion. You know, most of the department heads, to some degree, have contributed to the campaign of the mayor,to gain his promotion. This particular section, or paragraph, if you interpret it as such. . . MR. ODA: Well , I don ' t see this as prohibiting political contributions by department heads, or by people wanting to get into government service unless the specific intent of that contribution is to influence the decision of the appointing authority to get that job. That is a subjective thing only in the mind of that individual, so, unless he blabbers it, or says it to another person, I don ' t see how you are going to prove something like that. Because of the nature of the system in which we live, political contributions are solicited, you know, openly. MR. SCHUTTE: I understand that, but doesn 't it defeat that it almost comes out and definitely says a restriction exists. Maybe Akira can relate on that, what was the intent of this section before? If you take it and read it now, I interpret it as being a restriction. MR. ODA: Prohibiting the buying of jobs, primarily, not contributions. MR. ISHIDA: If you want to make a distinction, political contributions are made in anticipation of something to happen. I think this provision really is saying, for the job, I give you this. You know, there is a direct negotiation. . . .If you want to make the distinction. -53- MR. SCHUTTE: Would you repeat that? MR. ISHIDA: You know, a political conttibution is •gieh in anticipationand you hope you are going to get a job. MR. SCHUTTE: It says "proposed" appointment or "proposed" promotion. I question that. Whether it is relevant or not, I don' t know. MR. ODA: I don ' t see how something like that can be legislatively corrected or protected. Even if you did put something like that, nobody is ever going to admit that what he did was for the purpose of getting a job. So, it is left up to the integrity of the individual in the end. At least there is something on the books, you might say. I gather from your comments that you consider it broad enough to exclude political contributions, is that what you are saying? MR. SCHUTTE : Yes, in other words, if you look at it the way you read it. . .that the individual department heads. . . . MR. ODA: I suppose you can read that into it. It could just be a coincidence too, you know. MR. SCHUTTE: You understand, Stuart, it is just the way it is written, it would reflect that at certain times. . .that was just as a matter of discussion, that's all. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. SCHUTTE: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-10g as is, with the only change being that we change Director of/Personnel7Services to Director of Civil Services. Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-i1 : MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 13-i1 be approved and accepted as is. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 13-11 be approved and adopted, as is. Any discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? -54- Ayes - Sensano, Omonaka, Noes - None Trulson, Yanaga, Schutte, Ishida, Absent - �'-arraga d-7-/Y--7? Iwamoto, Kobayashi, Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-12: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that we adopt Section 13-12, as is. MR. YANAGA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-12,as is. Any discussion? MR. SCHUTTE: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Trulson, Yanaga, Noes - None Cadinha, Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Schutte, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Sensano, - 1 Ishida, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-13: MRS. KOBAYASHI: Before I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, could I have clarification of what that subsection (d) means? . . .Such contract shall not extend beyond the term, now the last sentence. . .This provision shall not apply to obligations for the procurement of utility services. I don 't know why that provision is there and I would like to know, why? MR. ODA: I have no idea on that one, either. MR. SCHUTTE: - Maybe Mr. Omonaka would have. MR. CADINHA: My guess, and it is a guess, my guess is that if the county enters into a contractural relationship with any other corporate entity , the intent here is to make sure that there is money around and that if the money has been appropriated, that it is amortized or paid for within that time of appropriation. Utility services are different. Let' s say that the county is putting a baseyard out in Ka'u somewhere, where there is no electricity. The county may be in a position to have to get aid,_ to construction and make an appropriation for Hawaiian Electric, let ' s say, to put poles, bring cables in and everything else to provide -55- the basic service. It is a contract that you enter into with the utility, but it is not really a business contract under this intent. I think that is why they exempted it, but, I am guessing, and I think that is only to facilitate. - Major construction costs can be amortized completely differently. MRS. KOBAYASHIa' . . .Water is a utility? MR. CADINHA: I would suspect it is. . .Water would now be a county agency, but, specifically telephone and power. Any other contract would be for a specific service for a specific good. Sometimes you have to enter into these contracts to get the basic service. I think that is why it is exempted. Since it is in there and it seems to work. . . MRS. KOBAYASHI: It makes sense. . .So, Mr. Chairman, may-,I move that Section 13-13, Contracts, be approved as written. MR. SCHUTTE: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-13 and approved as written. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Is it possible that the last sentence in subsection (d) makes it available without the above restrictions? MR. SCHUTTE: What is that? MR. TRULSON: I 'm just guessing but it says, . . .This provision shall not apply to obligations for the procurement of utility services. Well, everything before that is a control. Must be approved by the director; shall not extend beyond a term. Maybe I am reading something into this that is not there. . .Well, I am looking at it in reverse. It says it shall not apply to obligations for the procurement of utility services. Could it possibly be construed to mean that some of _the other controls are .not _applic able to procurement. of utility services? MR. ISHIDA: I guess you are right. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Ishida, do you understand what I am saying? MR. ISHIDA: I understand it, Bud, you are just saying this thing in reverse, right? Is there any problem that you can see? MR. TRULSON: No, I am saying, could it possibly be that way. That way it is, nobody can understand for sure what it is. Mr. Cadinha has one version, which is very good and possibly could be and it sounds feasible. But, T.-was just looking ,at, it from the point that perhaps the reverse is true -56- where you could go afil;ead and have obligations to procure utility services without the controls on the rest of the thing. MR. ISHIDA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion to adopt Section 13-13, as is? Ayes - Sensano, Yanaga, Noes - None Schutte, Trulson, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Iwamoto, - 1 Cadinha, Ishida, Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-14: MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I move we accept Section 13-14, as is. MR. SCHUTTE: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-14, as is. Is there any discussion? MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Ishida, Schutte, Omonaka, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Trulson, Yanaga, - 1 Iwamoto, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-15 : MRS. IWAMOTO: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept Section 13-15 , as is. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 13-15, as is. MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Ishida, Noes - None Sensano, Omonaka, Trulson, Yanaga, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Iwamoto, - 1 Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. -57 SECTION 13-16: MR. SCHUTTE: Discussion on Section 13-16. Stuart, do we intend any changes or have we made any changes to the director of finance. MR. ODA: I 'm sorry, I didn ' t get your question. MR. SCHUTTE: I said, have we made any changes to the director of finance? Because I think this particular section is. . . MR. CADINHA: The only change I recall making to the director of finance section was the fact that he is going to have confirmation by council. I think everything else was adopted intact. MR. ODA: You mean, the provisions with regard to that department? MR. SCHUTTE: Yes. . . ODA: don ' t recall any . MR. I Y MR. SCHUTTE: If not, I move that this Section 13-16 be approved, as is. MR. CADINHA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 13-16, as is. Is there any other discussion? MR. SENSANO: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Sensano, Schutte, Noes - None Ishida, Omonaka, Cadinha, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi , Yanaga - 1 Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-17 MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I move that we 13-18, 13-19: accept Section 13-17, 13-18, and 13-19 as they read. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded and we accept Section 13-17, 13-18, a d 13-19, as is. Any discussion? MR. ISHIDA: Question, Mr. Chairman. Stuart, on 13-18, is that active, or not? MR. ODA: That is what I was going to ask you. I think it is not. -58- MR. ISHIDA: It is not, it has been nullified. MR. ODA: In that case against the City and County of Honolulu which was decided by the Hawaii Supreme Court, they threw out the requirement of notice. MR. CADINHA: Is there any requirement of notice? MR. TRULSON: Mr, Chairman. As far as the county is, there still is. MR. ODA: Bud, do you recall whether there is any? MR. TRULSON: As early as two weeks ago, I had notification that if there is a claim to be made it should be made in writing within 6 months. MR. ODA: What was that? MR. TRULSON: It should be made in writing within 6 months. A phone call to Corporation Counsel, about a month ago, advised me how to make a claim, as provided -by the charter. MR. CADINHA: Did the County of Honolulu have a 6 month requirement, Stuart? Or was there a time limit that was just. . . MR. ODA: The other counties had similar provisions and as Richard pointed out, there was a challenge to this provision because the party claiming it was claiming damages for injuries was after the 6 month period. They challenged that provision and I think Justice Abe, in a: Supreme Court decision stated that the county provisions have to be similar to the state which is a two year limitation. They have two years in which to file suit. This one here says that if you don ' t file a claim within 6 months, you are out, you can 't do it. i am just going on memory, I may not be absolutely correct on it but, am I right, Richard? Doyou recall that? MR. ISHIDA: I can ' t specifically recall that. MR. CADINHA: Stuart, from a practical stand- point, in a court of law, if the judge entertains a motion to honor a claim than was filed 7 months and the deadline is the only thing that is up in the air, and the judge honors that motion, does the county lose, at that point? MR. ODA: Well, unless they want to appeal to the Supreme Court. There is a provision in the Maui Charter which was just approved last year, or the year before, the claim has to be filed within two years after the date the injury was sustained. I suspect the two year provision was inserted in there because of that Supreme Court decision. Honolulu, however, has a 6 month provision. -59- MR. CADINHA: Would you feel more comfortable with a two year clause in it? MR. ODA: I would sleep better if I have a chance to check it out. MR. ISHIDA: Maybe we should go ahead and pass it. . . MR. CADINHA: All right, I withdraw my motion and make it. . . .I would like to have the motion but with an open ended clause insofar as time requiremen t for filing a claim. We will leave it open and in the hands of our counsel. In other words, if the 6 month thing is in question, we will leave it to the discretion of legal counsel. MR. TRULSON: Second. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Section 13-18, the fourth line, the sedond to the last word, I think the word should be "extent. " Not extend. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion now? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Yanaga, Schutte, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Sensano, - 1 Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 13-20: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that we SUBSECTION (a) adopt Section 13-20, subsection (a) as is. MR. CADINHA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-20, subsection (a) as is. Is there any discussion on this? MR. ISHIDA: Bud, what do you have up your sleeve? MR. TRULSON: Well, because I have some. questions on other portions of this and I think I ' ll start from the top and godown instead of kapakahi. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any other discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Ishida, Noes - None Iwamoto, Kobayashi, Sensano, Yanaga, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. -60- SUBSECTION (b) MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. I move to adopt subsection (b) as is. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-20, subsection (b) as is. Any discussion? MR. :TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I believe we have had testimony that subsection (b) regarding the Sunshine Law is not the same as what the State Statute provides. In fact it is stronger. Is there any conflict between this between what the charter reads and what the State Statute reads, as far as interpretation by, shall we say, judges? Should we conform to theirs, the State".si, or shall we leave this one as is which appears to be a stronger one. MR. SCHUTTE: Bud, can you be more specific as to what particular portion you are referring to? MR. TRULSON: Subsection (b) . MR. SCHUTTE:'. What portion of that . subsection? MR. TRULSON: I don ' t have the statute, I have just the minutes that we had and this has been brought up. We had a letter, Communication #34, from Merle Lai. MR. SCHUTTE: Would you enhance our understanding by reading it?' MR. TRULSON: I am going to read it. She refers to Resolution 379 which was passed unanimously by the County Council on Wednesday, March 7, 1979. In her opinion. . . the reason for this submission is that pending before the present State Legislature are Bills, which if approved will allow all the legislative branches of this state to adjourn into caucuses and informal gatherings to formulate legislative decisions. But her main point is that she hopes. . .that the Charter Review Commission will not only upholdbut even make clearer without threat of challenges provisions of the charter that call for open meetings. To allow caucuses in Hawaii County will erode our present charter, which was approved by the voters. But, it seems to me, that she wants it even more " stronger than it is now. I am just bringing this up for your consideration. Do we want it this way or do we want it the same as the statute? MR. SCHUTTE: Okay, then my second question would be, how does it vary from the statute? MR. TRULSON: All. I know is that it is that it is broader. -61- MR. ODA: Let me assist in this, Mr. Chairman. The County Charter, if you read subsection (b) very carefully says that in two circumstances the meeting need not be open to the public. ( 1 ) affecting the privacy of an individual, and ( 2) regarding boards and commissions that are empowered to give examinations to determine capabilities of individuals regarding, you know, examinations, that kind of thing. So, privacy of individuals is involved and when examinations are involved, meetings need not be open to the public. Under the Chapter 92-3,4,5 , Hawaii Revised Statute, which is the public agency meetings and records provision, it requires all boards and commissions to have open meetings. However, they do exempt, it says, for example, a board may hold an executive meeting closed to the public upon an affirmative vote taken at an open meeting of two-thirds of the members present. The vote of each member on the question of holding it closed to the public and the reason for holding such -a meeting shall ',be recorded and entered into the minutes. But this executive meeting shall be limited to reasons stated in the next section which states that a board may hold a meeting closed to the public (a board means 'tach a board as - this or- any=other__public board) for one of the following purposes : ( 1) to consider the hire, dismissal , evaluation, discipline of an officer or employee or on charges brought against him where consideration on matters of privacy will be involved, provided that if the individual concerned requests an open meeting, a meeting shall be held. . .this is similar to the Hawaii County Charter provision except a little more specific. . . ( 2) to deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the board to conduct labor negotiations or to negotiate the acquisitions of public property, during the conduct of such negotiations. . . ( 3) to consult the board ' s attorney. . . (4) to investigate proceedings regarding criminal conduct. . . (5 ) to consider sensitive matters related to public safety or security. This part shall not apply_ to any chance meeting, at which matters related to 'off'icial business are_not discussed. No chance meeting or electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of this part to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision,- control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. So, you cannot say you just happened to have a chance meeting, so we made a decision to defeat the. . .this is what they call the Sunshine Law under Chapter 92 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. So, I think, what Councilwoman Lai was saying, as Mr. Trulson was saying, they wanted caucases, did she say? Be exempt from an open meeting requirement. . . this doesn ' t go into caucases but I think there was a court suit about a year ago, in the 3rd circuit court. I don ' t know the specifics of it but there was a dispute about these provisions which one should stand over which one and I believe the judge, Judge Kubota, held that the Hawaii County Charter provisions would have to be held to be the one applicable. -63- MR. TRULSON: In that case, then it would be better to retain the subsection as we have it. We have precedence as far as which would take precedence. MR. ODA: So far as precedence, I think the cause of the problem was because of the fact that the charter provisions were really not very definite about what type of things could be closed and what kind of things cannot. It just mentions two things and I suppose that even to consult the board ' s attorney and things like that, coun 't ' s attorney, maybe, you know, it is not in the charter. So an argument can be made, hey, you can ' t even consult your own attorney in private. That is the kind of thing. MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, in other words, what you are saying is the charter supersedes the statute. MR. ODA: That is what the judge said, yes. But on that specific point that they were arguing about. I might add that, I won 't quote the individual_ who passed the information on to me, but I was asked to initiate, at least, inform this group that the county provision should be conformed to the state provision. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, with regards to what you just said, in some cases we see the State Statute overrules everything else and it is very difficult to make decisions when you have a situation where the judge rules just the opposite, you know, who are you going to believe in making this other assumption in regards to the rest of the charter that we are working on. MR. ODA: There is always a continuing tug of war between state powers and county powers. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, but what is the accepted power. How can you establish an accepted policy when it can be either way? MR. ODA: Well, it is basically up to the legislature what kind of powers they want to give to the counties. MR. SCHUTTE: NO,- what I mean is, after all our deliberations and we have made rulings, okay, on this charter, rand we have accepted the fact that the State Statutes overrules everything else, and we come to this particular section that you mentioned and it is just the opposite where you said that the judge has ruled that this charter is above the State Statute so, my question is, what do we accept? Does this charter overrule the state? Or does the state overrule this charter? MR. ODA: No, you cannot make a blanket generalization like that. It depends on the specific matter you are discussing because on this particular provision all I am saying is Judge Kubota had made a decision, and I think I am correct, I may be wrong, but I think I am correct, that -64- he ruled that the county provisions prevailed. I don ' t even know what the specific dispute was, this was about a year ago. So I cannot say and take a leapfrog approach and say; every other provision in the County Charter, therefore„ -prevails over a conflicting State Statute. No, no, I am not saying that. I cannot say that because that is not true. Each matter has to be considered separately. MR. TRULSON: How do the other counties approach this problem? Do they conform to the State Statutes? MR. ODA: I haven ' t had a chance to look at it, frankly. MR. CADINHA: Let me ask this question, procedurally, Mr. Oda, what is the problem with the way it is written ,now? MR. ODA: Well , I think we will have, again, I am shooting from the hip, but we will have continuing..problems with the County Charter because it is too broad. The State Statute pinpoints, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, what is accepted from the open meeting provision and was is not`s When you leave language, such as the charter, too broad, you leave it wide open for all kinds of interpretation. This is where the dispute arises. If you are not specific enough as to what is permitted and what is not permitted and depending on what side of the fence you are on, you advocate one or the otherat any certain point in time. If you are a member of the news media, of course, you always take the position, no, it is prohibits- that kind of activity. If you are a member of the council , you say, oh, no, that is permitted, we can close the councilroom. We have to read it in that fashion. That is why it ends up in court because the statute, itself, is vague, so to speak, and you have to have a judge interpret the entire thing for you on a case by case basis. What I am saying is that if it is possible, perhaps it should be specified as the. State Statute is. There is too much room for debate under the present county provision. The end result is the same. Depending on whether you folks, as a commission, want to make exceptions to the Sunshine Law, now, I mean as the Sunshine Law does, they make exceptions. There is the Sunshine Law. . .but they have window shades on three windows. That is what it amounts to. MR. SCHUTTE: Are you recommending any addition be made to this language here? MR. ODA: You mean the county, the present one? MR. SCHUTTE: Yes. MR. ODA: Well, as I say, I don 't know whether I am overstepping my bounds when I say this, but I think the State Statute is probably, depending again on how you folks feel , philosophically, the direction with the State' Statute is more specific and more definite as to where you stand, so, -65- if any changes are going to be made as to specificity, I would suggest that the State Statute exceptions be considered so that nobody has any doubt as to whether they can close the meeting or not close the meeting in any one circumstance. But your group has , to make a philosophical decision as to whether you want any exceptions at all. If you don' t want any exceptions to the open meeting requirem-,nts then the State Statutes need not even be considered because as I say they have exceptions far more specific than the county provisions. So that is step'inumber one. MR. SCHUTTE: Could you read off that portion? MR. ODA: There are basically five.; .regarding the hiring, the firing, the evaluation, and discipline, and any employee, basically, that may be closed to the public. To any matters concerning labor negotiations. The conduct of labor negotiations. I don ' t mean to say that after the whole thing is finished, but the conduct of labor negotiations during the time that they are being negotiated you don ' t want the public to find out what the offer and the counter offers are, . I suppose, that is what "it- is _saying. To' consult with the board' s attorney, number ( 3) . Number -(4) to investigate proceedings regarding criminal misconduct. If any member of the. . .employee, or officer of the county is being investigated for bribery, theft, or whatever, if any board is investigating the Police Commission, or whatever, those proceedings can be closed to protect the privacy of the individual. I suppose that comes under the umbrella of privacy. And to consider sensitive matters related to publ_is =safety or security. That is a very broad provision. That is number (5 ) . What is public safety or what is security? Maybe civil defense matters, or whatever, I don 't know. Maybe when the president of the United States is visiting this county, perhaps some security meaaures will have to be taken and those kinds of things and the county must appropriate funds for that. I don' t know but, you know, you can argue about things like that. So those are the five exceptions the State Statute presently has. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. With what legal counsel has said, would it be proper to amend the existing motion that we authorize counsel to look at the language of this particular section and subsections and as a result offer his recommendations in writing of this particular subsection (b) next week. MR. CADINHA: We have a motion and a second on the floor now, don 't we? To accept the charter, as ' is? I call for the question. MR. SCHUTTE: I asked this question , would it be appropriate to amend that particular motion so that counsel could look into the language. . . -66- MR. CADINHA: I think legal counsel has said it is a philosophical question and it is up to us to decide where we stand, whether we want a broad or a very definite approach toward the Sunshine application, so the motion on the floor that is. . .has been moved that we accept it as it is is a rather broad one, let' s see where we sit. I call for the question. If it goes down, then we go back to the drawing board. MR. ISHIDA: If I may, Mr. Chairman, ask a question of legal counsel. On this, as it is written, as the charter is written now and as it is applied to,or compared to the State Statute, what is the real difficulty that the county is faced with as far as the charter provision is concerned should it be left this way, or, can the present charter provision be redrafted so as to conform to the provisions of State, Statute without limiting the charter any further? Can that be done? MR. ODA: Well, the State Statute has five exceptions permitting closed meetings which the charter does nothave. Of the five provisions, I would say that the first provision regarding personnel matters probably fall within the umbrella of privacy anyway of an individual which is already barred under the County Charter. Investigate proceedings regarding criminal misconduct, that may be a privacy of an individual matter, too. So, out of the five, you automatically have two matters that come under the umbrella of privacy, I think, it can be construed. So you have three others, regarding labor negotiations, consulting the board' s attorney and sensitive matters relating to public safety and security that are specified by State Statute but are not specified by County Charter. MR. ISHIDA: And those three are in no way or can be construed to fall within the exceptions as provided in the County Charter? ' see them to be. . . ODA. I don ' t MR. _ MR. CADINHA: Practically speaking, if I may interject, the issue of public security and safety really doesn ' t come under the. . .at the level of the county, I would think. The governor has the national guard, the governor is directly concerned with the security of the state and very few security matters, I can ' t think of one right now, I think would come under a county authority. MR. OMONAKA: Green Harvest. MR. CADINHA: Green_Harvest. ,And the same thing with labor negotiations. Aren' t they conducted on a state level? Unless it is a grievance, I imagine it would be handled countywise. -6 7- MR. ODA: I know the county representative to the state negotiations, if she was to report to the county council as to the progress of the labor negotiations, under our charter provision it would have to be open. Under the state one it is closed. So you have to automatically fight right there. If I were a news reporter, waiting out there to find out the status of the labor negotiations I would go to court, right away, and say, hey, you guys are not supposed to close it, it is not specified in the charter that you can close that. That is the kind of thing that would result in litigation because. . . MR. CADINHA: Unless the individual involved requested a closed hearing. MR. ODA: No, no, no, that is not an individual matter. MR. CADINHA: Perhaps she wants privacy and doesn 't want to be targeted. MR. ODA: Does what? MR. CADINHA: Perhaps the individual reporting wants privacy and doesn ' t want to be targeted by the press, couldn ' t she request a private hearing? MR. ODA: No, because that is :not a privacy of an individual matter. She is acting on behalf of the county as a labor negotiator and the county council, since it would have to approve funding for the labor contracts upon termination of the bargaining with the public employee unions they may want to ]know how everything is going. I don ' t know, cI: m just guessing, on maybe a month to month or "quarterly basis or whatever because they eventually will have to fund it. rf I were a county councilman, if I am going to fund anything, I would like to know what is going on. But right now I wouldn 't know how to answer somebody who would ask me, hey, is it closed or is it open. Under the charter, it is Open Under the State Statute is is closed. And the State Statute of a board includes some very broad definitions,so that is where you have problems. It includes any agency, board, commission, authority,;-committee:of the state or its political subdivision. So if the finance committee of the county council wants to meet and consider that, they can use this State Statute and say, hey, it is closed. The news reporter out there will say, hey, it is not stated in here that it is closed, so it is open and they both go on to court. MR. ISHIDA: Then the only way to make it consistent, you feel, is to adopt the provision as stated in the State Statute? MR. ODA: Well , the State Statute, again was amended and passed in 1975 as the Sunshine Law. This is where the term "Sunshine Law" came about. The County Charter provisions are ten years old and maybe they did not, at the -68- time that they drafted the 'County Charter provisions, have the sensitive problems that came about. For example, labor negotiations for public employees came about only in 1971 when the collective bargaining was passed. So the framers of the charter provision= didn 't have that problem to contend with. MR. ISHIDA: Ours was passed in 1974. MR. ODA: That is the news gatherers source. MR. ISHIDA: The entire section. I could be wrong. MR. ODA: It is in the old one, 1969. But, as I say, it is a philosophical question, basically, for this commission. But, as I say, my personal opinion on it is that you will have litigation on this, I can almost assure you, unless it is clarified. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, this provision,, ,sub- section (b) of Section 13-20, this was adopted in 1969, and you state that the statute, chapter 92, 3,4,5 HRS was in 1975? MR. ODA: Right. MR. TRULSON: In the 7 years there must have been challenges that throughout the state or the county that brought forth the Hawaii Statute. MR. ODA: I think when this statute was passed by the State Legislature back in 1975 , the legislative policy stated this in a democracy the people are vested with the ultimate decision making power. Governmental agencies exist to aid the people in the formation of conduct of public policy. Opening up the governmental process to public scrutiny and participation is a viable and reasonable method of protecting the public interest, therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy, the discussions, the deliberations, decisions and actions of governmental agencies shall be conducted as openly as possible. To implement this policy, the legislature declares that it is the intent of this body to protect the peoples right to know. The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed and the provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. . .and then they went on, so the entire section was made with the intent of providing open meetings as much as possible but they did make very specific exceptions to it. So the question really is, Mr. Chairman, whether this commission wants to make specific exceptions at all , more than what is presently in the charter, and that I cannot say one way or the other. MR. CADINHA: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. -69- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Bud, did you ever find anything from the Corporation Counsel ' s office? MR. TRULSON: I read everything and they never mentioned it. Mr. Bess never mentioned it. MR. SCHUTTE: And the only correspondence you have is the one that Councilwoman Lai wrote where she requests that we follow the State' s. . . . MR. TRULSON: Ms. Lai hopes that the Charter Commission will not only uphold it but even make it clearer without threat of challenges. So,clearer without _threat .of challenges, to me, would seem to spell out what is acceptable. MR. CADINHA: Either that or everything stays open. MR. TRULSON: How do you read it? "It is my hope that the Charter Review Commission will not only uphold but even make clearer"without threat of challenges provisions of the Charter that call for open meetings. " MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, if this proposal is defeated, we don 't have to spell out the entire section, we just can say, referred to by law? MR. ODA: Yes, right. You can do whatever you want with it. It is up to you. MR. OMONAKA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded to accept Section 13-20, subsection . (b) as is written in the charter. Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - Ishida, Iwamoto, Schutte, Trulson- 2 Sensano, Yanaga, Omonaka, Sakata Absent - Yagong 8 - 1 Carried. SUBSECTION (c) MR. SCHUTTE: There should be a change here, SUBSECTION (d) they refer to "wenty" four hours. I move to accept subsection (c) and (d) with the exception of the spelling in the sentence referred to. . .Such announcements shall be broadcast at least twenty' four hours in advance of such meeting. . .a spelling error. I move that with that exception,i.subsection (c) and (d) be accepted, as is. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept subsection (c) and (d) with the exception of the mistake in spelling of "wenty" to "twenty" four hours. -70- Any discussion? MR. SENSANO: What is a newspaper of general circulation? MR. ODA: I would say that would have to be a newspaper that is distributed throughout the community,; ;, the county, for example, you know, in the community, a newspaper of general circulation. The Hawaii Tribune Herald, for example. I don' t know whether you would classify the West Hawaii Today as a newspaper of general circulation. It might be, it is circulated throughout the island. I know we have a stand here in the Mall and several other places, so it could possibly be a newspaper of general circulation. Some people have disagreed with that, I understand. MR. OMONAKA: It doesn ' t say plural , just one newspaper, so, I think, as long as you distribute to one in general circulation, it would be enough. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, does the State Statute have any definition of that? MR. ODA: There are all kinds of similar provision s in the statutes regarding publication of notices but nothing like that has ever, to my knowledge, been challenged in court except recently. MR. SCHUTTE: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve subsection (c) and (d) with the exception of the spelling of the word "wenty" to "twenty. " Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SUBSECTION (e) MR. SCHUTTE: I move that subsection (e) be accepted, as is. MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept subsection (e) as is. Any discussion? MR. SENSANO: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Iwamoto, Kobayashi , Noes 1)-. Ishida, Yanaga, Omonaka, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Trulson, Cadinha, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. -71- SECTION 13-21 : MR. SENSANO: I move that Section 13-21 be accepted, as is. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 13-21 , as is. Any discussion? MR. YANAGA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understai,d the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Cadinha, - 1 Omonaka, Sakata -- 10 Carried. SECTION 13-22 MR. ISHIDA: MR. Chairman. I have reviewed THRU 13-27: the remaining sections of Article XIII. I believe there is really nothing that needs to be changed therefore I move that Section 13-22 through 27, inclusive, be adopted without change. MR. CADINHA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-22 through 13-27 without change. Any discussion? MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. Section 13-27, the final sentence of that is included in the definition of vacancy.,: Perhaps that should be deleted. . .Should any person holding an elective county office file nomination papers, etc. That is not the final sentence, it is the final sentence on that page. MR. CADINHA: Where else in the charter is that? MR. ODA: In the definition of vacancy. MR. ISHIDA: Is it identical? MR. ODA: The vacancy definition says, his office shall become vacant upon filing nomination papers for another office during his own term of office. MR. ISHIDA: I so move with that modification. MR. CADINHA: I second accordingly. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 13-22 through 27 with the deletion of the last sentence on page 35 which is under the definition of vacancy. -72- MR. SCHUTTE: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Sensano, Noes - None Omonaka, Trulson, Yanaga, Cadinha, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Iwamoto, - 1 Ishida, Sakata , - 10 Carried. RECESS: At 8:50 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 9:00 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. ARTICLE XIV: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section CODE OF '=;;' 14-1 be approved, as i s. ETHICS,:, SECTION 14-1 ` MR. SCHUTTE: Bud, why don ' t you take one step further and go from 14-1 to 14-2? MR. TRULSON: I have something else for 14-2. MR. ISHIDA: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 14-1 , as is. Any discussion? Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None Yanaga, Iwamoto, Ishida, Schutte, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Sensano, - 1 Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 14-2: MR'. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Section 14-2. I move that a new subsection (h) be included to read. . .A person ' s occupation , profession or business shall not in itself be a bar from someone serving on any board _orcommission _of the =County of Hawaii. MR. ODA: Would you read that again? MR. TRULSON: A person ' s occupation, profession or business shall not in itself be a bar from someone serving on any board or commission of the County of Hawaii. -73- MR. SCHUTTE: I second that motion. MR. CADINHA: Who are you pointing at, Bud? MR. TRULSON: I am not really pointing at anybody in particular but I think it was brought up to us by the Chambers''and the Hilo Contractors ' Association. It would be subsection (h) . MR. CADINHA: I just wanted to know where it was coming from. MR. ISHIDA: I have a question for legal counsel. This proposed amendment, legal counsel, would that be. . .can it be construed consistently with subsection (d) ? MR. ODA: (b) as in boy? MR. ISHIDA: No, dog. MR. ODA: You would have to reword the provision. I might add, Mr. Chairman, when I was with the County Corporation Counsel ' s office, I was to draft an opinion on this matter that is now before this commission regarding whether real estate brokers or salesmen could sit on the County Planning Commission and, this was back in 1973, I think, and I think I should mention that the opinion as I recall it, based on an interpretation of subsection (d) as Mr. Ishida is pointing out, I came;tb the opinion that it was a conflict of interests for real estate brokers to sit on the County Planning Commission because of the broadness of that particular language. That was in 1973. Whether the climate or the atmosphere of this county has changed since then, I don ' t know. I don ' t mean to, by mentioning that, that I hold this position now or am recommending that to the commission, I certainly want to go on record that I did write an opinion to that effect and I am not trying to influence any member of this commission, in any way, by mentioning it, it -is =,just a matter of public record that I was the individual who wrote it. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, you wrote an opinion regarding real estate brokers, but, I mean, literally, you could take it further, you could say contractors, you could say just about anybody. To me, it would seen as a,,blatant form of discrimination. You are reducing a significant amount +®f the population from serving on boards and commissions. MR. ODA: It wasn' t up to me to make the philosophical distinction as to who was good or bad, I wasn 't making it. My job, as I saw it, was just to interpret subsection (d) , which is what I did. From the strictly legal standpoint. I have my own feelings about the philosophical basis of whether they should or should 'not, but that is beside the point. I had to wear the hat of a, s.ort of a judge, so to speak, and write an opinion on that. But, you know, the specific question was asked by the Board of Ethics or somebody, I forget, regarding real estate brokers, only. -74- MR. CADINHA: Mr. Oda. Question. Subsection (d) of 14-2, hypothetically, if a person in real estate were to become a member of the Planning Commission, would he not be guided by subsection (d) and..if, in effect, did profit by a specific ruling, be in violation of the code, anyway? How would you interpret subsection (d )? MR. ODA: If he had a financial stake in the . . . MR. CADINHA: Right. The conflict of interest would be simply that a person in real estate, because the planning function so often relates to real property zoning and this sort of thing, could come under a conflict. If subsection (d) under our Code of Ethics delineates, to me, anyway, but I `amnot an attorney, I am asking whether this is proper, delineates very clearly where a person, regardless of occupation, would be termed out of bounds. In other words, would subsection (d) be adequate policing for a person in real property? MR. ODA: It is a difficult kind of question to say yes or no. If I were asked that question, the one I was asked in 1973, today, I probably might come up with the same opinion on it, based on the specific question that was P P asked .of me to write an opinion on. If you look at subsection (d) the language is very broad. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, regarding subsection (d) now it says in Section 14-2, Standards. . .It shall constitute a conflict of interest for any employee or officer of the county to (d ) engage in any business. . . So if he was a member of a board and a certain thing would come up where he was in conflict, would he not just withdraw from that particular question , or a vote in that particular question? MR. ODA: Yes, there are ways you can. . .yes, abstain from it or whatever. MR. TRULSON: Abstain and not be in conflict. I would think we could still have the new subsection and leave subsection (d) as it is. It should police itself. MR. ODA: The major provisions"-of subsection (d) are in the middle and the latter portions which might reasonably tend to be incompatible with his proper discharge of his official duties:. Or impair his independence of judgment in the performance of his official duties. I think that is the basis on which the ethics commission held at that time that it was a conflict. Oh, excuse me, let me correct myself. I think the ethics commission had asked me to write a decision on which they already voted. I 'm sorry, I didn 't write the opinion, independently, it was an ethics commission decision and I was asked to write the opinion conforming to their decision. I stand corrected. It was so long ago, six years, already. -75- But, I 'm sorry, Mr. Trulson, did i answer your question, or what? I didn 't mean to avoid it. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, you don' t see any conflict in the proposed section (h) ? MR. ODA: I think there is. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, I was just looking at it because in one case you are saying, no, and on the other side right down the line you are saying it is allowable. MR. ODA: I think there is. The only way you can avoid a conflict is to put except as provided above, something like that. I don ' t see how subsection (d) and Mr. Trulson' s proposal could be compatible in the same section. MR. TRULSON: If you took subsection (h) as my proposal is and you said, with the exception of, aren 't you negating it? MR. ODA: That is right. I don ' t see how. . . your provision would have to be worked into subsection (d) , you know. MR. ISHIDA: Can (d) be redrafted so that it can be made compatible? I think what Mr. Trulson' s intention here is that specifically to the Planning Commission where realtors carte blanche are not able to serve on the commission. For no reason at all , just because they are realtors. Now, I can see where any transaction that comes before the commission where they may be personally involved, clearly would be a conflict, but the fact that they are realtors, and realtors even though some of them might not be practicing as realtors, that may not be their major. occupation, I think are now barred from serving on the/ commission. I don ' t know how we can best phrase it but I think what we would like to see is that a person is not barred from serving on a commission just because of his major profession or occupation. MR. ODA: Just for the record, I want to be sure that this commission and whoever reads the record a year or two `from now will understand that I don' t have any feelings against it, okay, I happened td_be- mandated by the ethics board to write it and I declared that, - just for the record, to be absolutely clean on the table. MR. SCHUTTE : As a matter of discussion with regards to what you are saying, that if this be the case and we add subsection (h) , then that does not prohibit 7 or 8 members on the Planning Commission from being realtors, is that correct? But as a realtor you could be involved in a conflict of interest but not because in general if you are a broker. . .the whole thing, itself, but if you are just a sale! .man -76- through the multiple listing this may have some bearing on a particular project if you live in Kona or a job is in Hilo, or anygeographical area, would this be a problem? If you had the realtors, how would they abstain from voting if you've got seven members on that particular commission and of that seven, four just happen to be real estate salesmen? Because you are not restricting it now. MR. ISHIDA: You are always faced with that position. MR. SCHUTTE: I know I seconded the motion but after reading. . . MR. TRULSON: It goes back to, again, the mayor is going to pick a commission and. . . . .is he going to pick seven realtors or pick one realtor, or two. The chances are having a majority of realtors, I think, are very, very remote. . . MR. SCHUTTE: . . .I would look at it, after reading this section and voting on your motion, I kind of look at it as being a conflict because subsection (d) restricts and subsection (h ) allows. • MR. TRULSON: Right now, there can be nine ' contractors on the Planning, Commission. There could be nine of anything in the world. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, but that subsection (d) would restrict that possibility, wouldn ' t it? MR. ISHIDA: We are not saying we are going to delete it. There is a conflict and my question is, can it be redrafted so that our intent is that these people, so a person who is a realtor by profession is not barred solely because he is a realtor. MR. ODA: I think something can be drafted not just naming realtors but occupational. . . MR. TRULSON: My motion did not name any particular occupation. It could be claims adjuster. MR. ODA: This provision is so often in dispute and questioned that I would like to, if it is the intent of the commission as to go along with Mr. Trulson ' s theory, anyway, and his feelings on it that I would like to have a week to draft a provision to incorporate the intent of this body. I 'm sure something can be worked out to effect that. MR. TRULSON: Is it in order to make a motion? MR. OMONAKA: We have a motion. MR. SCHUTTE: What is the point of order? -77- MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I suggest we just go back and blow this to intent again and once again, give license of the pen to the good judge. MR. TRULSON : Perhaps to clarify the motion, if there is any other conflicting area in this subsection, our legal counsel will draft a section that would not conflict in itself. The intent is clear. MR. OMONAKA: The motion on deck is to include subsection (h) and the intent is that there is a conflict with subsection (d) so, if everybody understands the intent of the motion and if this carries, then Mr. Oda will prepare necessary language covering subsection (d) . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Ishida, Noes - None Schutte, Iwamoto, Kobayashi, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Trulson, Yanaga, - 1 Omonaka, Sakata - 10 Carried. SUBSECTION (c) :MR. ODA. Mr. Chairman. My notes also indicate that subsection (c) may have been declared unconstitutional by Judge Doi. I don 't know where this came from but it is there. MR. TRULSON: Yes, my notes say delete subsection (c) . MR. ODA: Bud, do you remember where it came from? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Communication #22, Bud. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, this was when Ms. Garcia was here and she was quoting from a statement on sections and referring it to the County Charter. And, there was a lawsuit where they referred to Section 5-C, 8A, 8B, 8C and 9 it will take awhile to read this whole thing but that is where she thought that because of that decision that (c) probably would not apply or would be considered unconstitutional. . . that is in the minutes of the 6th meeting. MR. ODA: We will check: it out. Let me look at the minutes and next week when we come back, I will come back with it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Okay, fine. We' ll go to Section 14-3. -78- SECTION 14-3 MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I move that 14-4: Section 14-3 and 14-4 be accepted, as is. MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 14-3 and 14-4 be approved as is. Any discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Sensano, Omonaka, Noes - None Trulson, Yanaga, Cadinha, Kobayashi , Absent - Yagong Iwamoto, Ishida, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 14-5MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Section 14-57 -third 176: sentence down. . .Each shall serve for a term of five years. . .I think that has to be changed to a three year term to conform with Section 13-4 that we already worked on. I move that Section 14-5 and 14-6 accepted as is with that correction made to Section 14-5 where the term should be for three years in order to conform to the other section. MRS. KOBAYASHI: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 14-5 and 14-67-as is but changing the term five years to three years in Section 14-5. Any discussion? MR. YANAGA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman , I vote no, not because I don 't favor accepting the Sections, but because I favor a five year term, so I vote no. Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - Omonaka _ Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Cadinha, - 1 Sakata _ - 9; Carried. MR. ISHIDA: Legal counsel , this section will conform with 13-4. . yout revision will reflect that. -79- ARTICLE XV: MR. ISHIDA: Counsel, on Section 15-3, does the first sentence need to be modified? Can it just SECTION 15-1 be left as is? 15-2, 15-3 ; MR. ODA: We have a draft of a proposed revision which we didn ' t make copies of, we didn 't have enough chance to really look at it carefully. Basically, the provisions, the changes that we have initiated for your consideration hale to do with specifics as to the geographical areas from which the people, the commission members, are to come from to conform to the other provisions regarding where commission members are to come from. The years in which the charter shall be reviewed shall be 1989 and every tenth year thereafter. Under 15-3. . .Ten years after the that is a misspelling of ratification ratification of this charter and at intervals of ten years thereafter. . .that would make it, actually, the same as what we are saying here, 1969, 1979, 1989. There is a specific date on which this commission is supposed to be convening. We are proposing the 15th of January of the Charter Review year which is not specified in this particular provision, right now and the public hearing require- ments like the ones we had, I don ' t think, right now, are in the charter provisions but we are including that in the amendments, so, basically, what we are doing by way of commission rules and procedures, we are incorporating into the proposed amendments with more specifics involved, that is all. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Can we defer this until Mr. Oda has everything ready? MR. ODA: I could have this prepared by next week. MR. ISHIDA: Second. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Some discussion on this. You know, in our going around with the public hearings we found there were a lot of people not aware of the County Charter and the provisions in the charter. I was just thinking, I don ' t know what the rest of the commissioners feel , but instead of just making it a review, make it an educational , because in ten years from now we will be having a lot of young voters that come in that are not aware of the charter provisions, a lot of immigrants that come in, so tied into the review, I don ' t know what the rest of the commissioners feel, but could the Charter Review Commission be changed with the responsibility of before reviewing, educating the general population? I don ' t know how the rest of the commissioners feel about that. MR. ODA: Before when? MR. OMONAKA: Well , let' s say, for instance, ten years from now, the Charter Commission gets together to review so as part of their work they should go out, I don ' t know how, but inform the general population of the County Charter. -80- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. It would be a good idea, but to do it as Charter Commissioners, I think you are speaking of a two year job. It is, going to take you a long time to go all over this island and educate the public and the only ones you are going to educate are those who want to come out and listen to you anyway. Like we went to the public hearings and perhaps we would have had more people there if there had been more education on it, but I am fairly pessimistic about that. We would have to have the Charter Commission convene in , 9 years to enable them to complete the 10th year, the Charter Review. We have been going at it, what, since January, and it is going to take us nine, ten, eleven months to get a ballot out. I think you would have to add six or seven months to that for education. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I would like to suggest off the top of my head three things that we could have done this time around. We did have money for a staff and perhaps at the same time we convened, we could have hired a person on a temporary basis to act as a PR, educator type of person, so that the commissioners themselves would not be given that responsibility. I also think, I keep saying this to myself, gee, if this could have been a CCES 'course, you know, just serving on the commission, I could have written a paper and maybe gotten, I don't know, college credit, poly sci, something, because I think all of us, for ourselves, this has been an education, so if there had been maybe a continuing education course along with the Charter Review that would have given us public input as well as interest into the charter. Someone suggested that maybe this should have been a school project, maybe high school civics, or high school social studies classes, it could have been a suggested curriculum thing. So, I think, in looking back, I think there were many ways that, had I known then what I know now, I definitely can see where ten years from now that there are ways that can be done at the beginning of our study to have implemented more community input and interest. Hindsight is much better than foresight, as they say. I think Mr. Omonaka' s suggestion is a. very goad one and I don ' t think it is impossible to do. MR. TRULSON: It may be possible to do without the Chatter Comrission doing it. The county itself, some agency within the county, itself, prior to the charter year, could advertise, put out brochures. . . MRS. KOBAYASHI : It could have been done even while we were having our deliberations, I think. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Akira has a source of very real concern. I think perhaps I am not sure we want to put this in the charter, like you say, Bud, but perhaps what we are looking for is a review procedure that Can be more clearly delineated so we don ' t waste time pulling the teeth._: of department heads and then going back to the drawing boards -81- for weeks when a person isn 't ready to testify. I fault, constructively only, believe me, but I fault a lot of the governmental agencies for• not being prepared to render a case before us as to how the charter applies to them or doesn ' t, or how it works or doesn ' t work. We had to, in most instances, extract the information over weeks and weeks. For example, if we had a procedure setup where we could, on the first two weeks in January get all the administrative input from all =the department heads; the second two weeks get the legislative input from government, that is four weeks. And I think we spent, maybe twelve--wreeks getting that kind of input from county people. If they were ready with their testimony, I don ' t think we would be in this crash course, right now, and secondly, perhaps, Akira, what we are looking for is that we could come to a decision sooner and air it to the public, as a trial balloon? To see whether they like what we are thinking about or not and then we could have time to go back to the drawing boards. I like the idea. How to do it, again, is a problem but the next Charter Commission, a decade from now should be spared some of the time and expense. MR. TRULSON: There is a motion on the floor. I call for the question. MR. OMONAKA: A motion to defer. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Ishida, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Yagong Trulson, Yanaga, - 1 Iwamoto, Sakata - 10 Carried. ARTICLE XVI : MR. ISHIDA: Article XVI. In view that Article XVI pertains to transtionalprovisions and ~ many of them are housekeeping and ministerial things which may or may not be applicable. May I suggest that the entire article be turned over the legal counsel for him to determine which, if any, are applicable or if any additional matters should be added at this time. So, on that basis, I would like to move to that effect. MR. CADINHA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I have a question for Stuart. On 16-12, Salaries, that has been changed, hasn ' t it? MR. ODA: Definitely. -82- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on Article XVI, Transitional Provisions? MR. SCHUTTE: In accord with what Richard said, there may have to be something added in the transition regarding the water board, etc. Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Sensano, Ishida, Kobayashi , Absent - Yagong Iwamoto, Cadinha, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. ARTICLE XV: MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. Getting back to Article XV, in drafting a proposal for this commission I would like to have a little more guidance as to the point raised by Mr. Omonaka and Mr. Cadinha. Whether I am supposed to put something in there regarding those concerns or leave it out, or what. MR. CADINHA: Discussion, Mr. Chairman. Akira, how do you think it ought to be handled? MR. OMONAKA: Well, I don ' t know, that is why I tossed it out. I don' t know how the rest of the commissioners felt. Maybe it can be handled by a letter from the Charter Commission to the council citing the need for some educational program prior to any Charter Review and maybe not write into the charter what:'I am suggesting but"write to-=the county` council. MR. ODA: Can I say something on that? Being that the commission meets only once in ten years, I don' t think that is going to work. It is going to be forgotten. If this commission really feels strongly about it, I think you will have to mandate it in the charter by way of a langu;•age in there. . . I'm just throwing it out. . .that they hire necessary staff, including but not limited to an information specialist who shall work with the commission to keep the public informed of all proceedings of the commission and, you know, whatever. That kind of thing. Because, ten years from now when maybe one of you will be reappointed, two of you, maybe, but nobody is going to remember that unless it is in here. That is what I think. That is my own. . . MR. ISHIDA: With that in mind, per your suggestion can you draft something along that line? MR. ODA: That is what I was thinking about. If you just leave it up to the discretion of somebody else, they are not going to do anything about it, it is too convenient to table it. -83- Unless you do that, nobody is ever going to be concerned about it ten years from now. MR. SCHUTTE: Then what we are looking at is the intent at the time of the changes, or the intent to educate prior to the change? When we first started we looked at going before the public and our anticipation was that we would take input from the public, perform whatever we felt necessary and then go back to the public again. In going over the minutes of the public hearings, the majority of the individuals apparently are not exactly aware of what they wanted to talk about and they were asking, what are you suggesting, what is the commission suggesting. Some- times it can just be retaliatory. . . . It is going to be a tough thing to try and legislate to put in here in words to make that provision other than going before the public once initially for information and the second time inform them of what has taken place and give them the opportunity for rebuttal. That is the educational process. . . If you take the average individual and you tell them you want to talk to them about the charter, there is no interest. . .the press has covered the proceedings. . .the public doesn ' t have any final input until they go to the polls. . . MR. ODA: The basic problem, I think, about going two times out. . . ( l) to obtain information and ( 2) to get reaction to any proposed draft. .I think it is a matter of the time involved. That is always, you know, hanging over your heads. If you are rushing through with the drafting of the provisions just to see that you have time to go out, you are compromising one thing to accomplish another and, frankly, I feel that education should not be this commission' s responsibility in and of itself, you have enough to do to get down to the work of redrafting the various charter provisions, and that is the number one principle job of this commission. It is not necessarily to . I 'm sure that education , if you have the time to do it, it should be done._ -rt is admirable, it is good if it can be done, but you can 't do too many things at once because of the time constraints. MR. SCHUTTE: On this Charter Commission, first of all because we didn ' t have our legal counsel onboard initially we were set back one month because of violation -,. in meeting notices, rules and regs, etc. , as a result. In addition to that at the time we started we would meet for two hours, three hours but in getting this information from the officials of the county was very difficult because it was like pulling teeth. . . MR. ODA: Maybe you want to do something like the reapportionment commission, set up specific time limits in the charter, itself, as to when vprious stages are to be completed. You already have that, by your own rules but. . . -84- MR. SCHUTTE: . . . .the commission itself can procrastinate. I would be afraid to put that in the charter as a provision because you are limiting what they can adopt as their own rules of procedure at that time to decide on whether they are going to have enough time to go two times or how they want to educate the public, if they want to educate them at all. It is just that trying to educate them is going to be the problem. How do we do it. Like Akira says, we would like to see it done but, you know, if any one of us was to go up to anybody today and say, look I want to talk to you about the charter, they"ain ' t"interested in ito. .but then again you could have a problem in a public hearing and if you mention something, most of them don ' t know what it is all about anyway. If you mention something you are going to have a rebuttal. . .something to talk about. . . . MR. ODA: So getting back to my original concern or question, for my own guidance what shall I do regarding the draft? MR. OMONAKA: I don ' t think we can look ten years down the road and tie this guy' s hands by charter. That is why, maybe, I suggested maybe a letter be written to the council and say, hey, certain ' things should be done prior to this Charter Review. But,- like you say, these things can be lost in the shuffle. MR. ODA: Easily. The question that was made goes far beyond the:. .to what I know,. .Charter Review duties of other counties. For some reason, they haven ' t gone beyond the limits of what we are doing now. I don ' t know why. Maybe time is their problem, too, you know. MR. CADINHA: I am just trying to think of a way that we can have something that doesn 't have to be incorporated in this and voted on as an amendment or anything else. If the county council were to resolve and approve of a format to be on file with the county clerk so far as Charter Review process is concerned, a resolution isn ' t exactly law, right? It is a very strong suggestion or approval. . . MR. ODA: What was that about the county council? MR. CADINHA: If =we were to_ appoint- a, committee just like we did on redistricting, okay, maybe three people - " out of this commission, to think about this problem of how we can review the charter in such a way that it makes it easier for the people to understand, to get more participation and it goes smoother. The committee comes up with recommendations. If we could adopt this as a suggestedo eview procedure to be used by the next Charter Commission, recommending to the council of the County of Hawaii that they put in the form of a resolution to be on file with the county clerk and ten years from now it can be resurrected and presented to the new commission. Would that have any weight? -85- MR. ODA: It would be nice reading if they could find it. I can' t be any more honest than that. MRS. KOBAYASHI : In Section 15-3, couldn ' t you just put the word "educate" in there somewhere. MR. ODA: All I am asking for is what you folks want to do about that. If you put that word in there, I don ' t even know if the commission , ten years from now is going to say, hey, it is our duty to go out to educate people. I don ' t know. Sometimes things like that happen to be glossed over, so to speak. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, as we were working on these various changes, as they were made, the deletions and additions, etc. were made available If we had it in our rules and regs that they would be printed. In other words, whatever we discussed today, the language could be setup and made available. . .to the public. I don ' t know how it could be done but an education at the time but that would have to be developed by the particular commission at that time as to their own rules. If that were in our rules today, what we have worked on tonight would be set` up . .by the clerk ' s office and put in the paper for the public to look at. The only other difference is that individuals would be allowed time to make comments at a formal meeting. .. MR. ODA: The newspapers have done some educational service for this commission by writing the Wednesday articles about the Tuesday night deliberations so I think from that standpoint, they have already done that. A summary fashion but maybe you folks want to do that. MR. SCHUTTE: But I think what Akira is looking at is. . .what the press is looking at is what is interesting. They; only write about certain items. They are not going to write about something they are not too interested in. What Akira is talking about is how are you going to educate the public about everything. I don ' t know how it is going to be done unless, like I said, it is adopted by the commission to put it in their rules so that it is made available and set up in print in the county clerk ' s office so that they can read it and come back the next week and bitch about it. . . MR. ISHIDA: I hear from the discussion that we have no solution can we go to Article X? ARTICLE X: MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Perhaps from a broad gauge point of view, I have looked at this section and I really think it is very workable but there are a few things that are somewhat bothersome and I think it is important to clear the air and make it a matter of record and sit down and handle these things. And, secondly, there are a few minor details, specifically, those that Stanley Nakamae recommended that we can get into. -86- Basically, the budgeting process seems to me any- way to-be cleancut and workable. I see no reason to change anything and I will moue accordingly. One theme comes through very strong, though, and that is that there is language in here for a balanced budget. Revenues and expenses and the administrative budget have to balance. When you get to the county level for verification of this, if they are going to make any deletions or additions and I quote. . .But in all cases the estimated revenues for the ensuing year shall be at least equal in amount to the proposed expenditures. . .Once- aga_in,__ alluding to the fact that a balanced budget is a deep and_common, thread throughout this thing. I think we should retain that. The matter of appropriations, and that is up in the air right now with our current budget. I refer to the minutes of June 19 when Mayor Matayoshi was here and this is a source of concern and I quote. . .I asked the question of the mayor does the executive department have the right, after - the budget is approved to change the allocations by division within that department. . .and the mayor answers. . .no, we don ' t take the money away, we move bodies. Specifically, the language of the charter, I am referring to Section 10-9, the language of the charter allows for transfer within an agency between appropriations by the mayor. If he is $5 ,000 short or $2,000 short in one approria- tion, I believe the intent of this language and correct me if I am wrong, Akira, was to give the mayor, the administration some flexibility in balancing out each appropriation and going on to the next one. I don ' t believe that the intent is to give complete flexibility where the administrator of our county government can just arbitrarily leave an appropriation or transfer half of an appropriation in the form of bodies some- where else. I am not saying that the current mayor is doing this, I am saying the language is loose and I think it is sufficient that we commit it to minutes and commit it to record that the intent is clearly to facilitate the minor transfers and in no way should change the coloration of appropriations made by the council. With those two areas of concern having been noted, I would like to move that we adopt Section 10-1, Section 10-2, Section 10-3 , Section 10-4 in their entirety. I am assuming all the members of the commission have read this section. SECTIONS 10-1 MR. SCHUTTE: I second the motion. 10-2, 10-3, 10-4 CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Article X, Section 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4 in their entirety. Any discussion? Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None Ishida, Schutte, Absent - Yagong Yanaga, Sensano, - 1 Iwamoto, Yanaga, Trulson, Sakata 10 Carried. -87- SECTION 10-6 MR. CADINHA: Section 10-6, (a) , (b) , (c) , and and 10-7 Section 10-7 appear to have no conflict. I move that we accept those as they are. MR. SCHUTTE: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 10-6, (a) , (b) , and (c) , and Section 10-7 as they are. Any discussion? MR. CADINHA: Does everyone have that stapled insertion for 10-6 (c)? Okay, it reads. . .this is with respect to the council action on the budget. . .After the public hearing on the capital budget, the county council may adopt the capital budget with or without amendment. in amending, the council shall request and consider, but need not follow, the recommendations of the mayor as to the proposed amendment. That is the insertion. MR. SCHUTTE: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 10-6 , subsection (a) , (b) , and (c) , and Section 10-7. Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Schutte, Ishida, Kobayashi, Absent - Yang'.ang Iwamoto, Cadinha, - 1 Sensano, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 10-8 .,_ MR. CADINHA: Section 10-8 and I refer to Mr. Nakamae' s Feb-ruary 9 letter to us, Communi- cation #25. This is exactly what Mr. Nakamae says. . .There appears to be a conflict between the second sentence in Sec. '3-12 (Emergency Ordinance) and Sec. 10-8 (Appropriations : Supplemental and Emergency) . Sec. 3-12 prohibits use of emergency ordinances to borrow money; yet Sec. 10-8 allows issuance of emergency notes by ordin'ance. . . Basically, one section of the charter could be interpreted as saying that in case of emergency the county still cannot borrow to fulfill a need to take care of an emergency, while the other section apparently gives them the leeway to borrow money, if-necesary, to facilitate the aiding in an emergency situation I move that once again we lean on our counsel to make consistent both sections but yet in intent we allow the borrowing of funds in short term notes when necessary, in the case of an emergency. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: You are referring to 10-8? -88- MRS. KOBAYASHI : And 3-12. We changed that to Section 3-13 now. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: 3-13. MR. CADINHA: Yes, they have to be together. They both conflict somehow. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I second the motion. MR. CADINHA: And I am saying that we should allow. . .my motion is that we give them the leeway to borrow if necessary to handle an emergency. This would not be a massive borrowing. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 10-8. Any discussion on this? If we are adopting10-8 the way TRULSON: it is, is that our motion, then don 't we have to change Y 3-13? MR. CADINHA: My motion is to open it up to counsel so that so that the verbiage is consistent on both of those. MR. TRULSON: In other words, counsel has the discretion to change 3-13. . . . MR. CADINHA: The intent is in case of an emergency that our legislators can borrow the funds to get over the hump. MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Ishida, Noes - None Iwamoto, Kobayashi, Cadinha, Sensano, Absent - Yagong Omonaka, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. RECESS: At 10: 10 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 10:30 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. SUNSET LAW: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Before we continue on with Article X, I have one motion regarding the Sunset Law. I think we forgot that part and the wording I have is as such and I will leave it to legal counsel to fit into the charter at the appropriate section. -89- The wording is. . .Once every four years, the council shall critically review every program supported by county funds and unless the council shall favorably, authorize_its continuation at current or modified levels, the program shall be terminated. The council shall adopt procedures and details. . . . We have a lot of input regarding inserting a sunset section into the charter. MR. SCHUTTE: The motion, Bud, is that to be adopted as is? MR. TRULSON: As a section or as a subsection. I leave that to the counsel as to where best to put it in the charter. MR. SCHUTTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that the sunset law be put into the charter. MR. CADINHA: Would you read the motion again, please, Bud? Slowly. At least once every TRULSON: four years, , the council shall critically review every program supported by county funds and unless the council shall favorably authorize its continuation at current or modified levels9 the program shall be terminated. The council shall adopt procedures and details to implement this section. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Can I ask Mr. Trulson a question? Bud, two questions. Why four years and are you taking anybody' s. . . MR. TRULSON: I 'm taking the wording of Mayor Matayoshi. MRS. KOBAYASHI : You are taking the wording of Mayor Matayoshi. MR. TRULSON: This is part of Communication #25 that was submitted by Mr. Nakamae. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Four years, does that mean every four years that program is on the books or doJ ou just take everyfourth year they would have to review Y no matter how long the program was going on. . . MR. TRULSON: It would appear,,' now it may change, but I think the intention was every term of the council , every four years they would review. Every four years, every program. MR. OMONAKA: Is your interpretation of pro§ram by departments also? Fire ,;D'epartment, the band. . . -90- MR. TRULSON: Every program supported by county funds. I am sure it is to catch programs that were probably instituted temporarily that seem to just never get put off the books. I am sure if they come to review, like you say, the county band, there is not that much to review. I don't think you can word it to pinpoint any programs because it would be voluminous. How are you going to do it? MR. ODA: There are programs supported by federal funds that you just simply cannot eliminate. MR. OMONAKA: Joint funding, you are talking about. MR. ODA: Yes. I don' t know offhand what they might be but. . . MR. ISHIDA: There is a general provision in the charter where federal funds are involved such programs would continue on that might counter that situation. MR. ODA: Perhaps the language can be refined a bit upon reflection. MR. SCHUTTE: Would it be proper if we just move that there be a sunset law and language be drafted by counsel. MR. ODA: To be submitted for approval. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes. MR. TRULSON: I ' ll amend my motion to include that as long as the intent is that we have a sunset law. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. OMONAKA: I kind of recall the mayor making the statement, and I think we have to go to the minutes, but I think it was more philosophical than a need. As a mayor, you know, he has to have his control. Is it the intent then to write into this so he can actually amend charters and stuff like that?. I think this is what you are talking about. Take away Parks and Recreation? This kind of stuff. MR. YANAGA: The council has the power now to check into any department or any program that uses county money, right? MR. OMONAKA: Sure, the budget says so. MR. SCHUTTE: Isn 't the sunset law relative to what council does. Doesn ' t the council make the decision that they go on with the programs. Don ' t they take a look at it and see what is available and what it should be used for and what should be terminated. . . -91- MR. OMONAKA: Was is the intent of the motion? MR. SCHUTTE: The intent, I believe, is that every four years every program funded by the county be reviewed. . . . MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I speak against the motion because under the present setup how funds are allocated through the budget procedure, I think, we have enough checks and balances. I don' t think the council knowingly will allow any moneys that they have funded go where it is not required. MR. SCHUTTE: Counsel, can you think of any agency where this sunset law might be applicable? I can ' t think of any right now, myself. . . . MR. ODA: I can ' t think of any agency here on this county level . I do recall on the state level they had an agency called a correction agency board, I think, under chapter 443 of the Revised Statutes. It very, very seldom ever met, they didn ' t have very much to do, I think, so I think they wiped it off the books. I don ' t recall whether it was related to a sunset law or not but those are the kinds of things that because the legislators cannot always keep track of which boards and commissions are doing anything and because of the immensity of state government, they put something like that in there. I don ' t know whether it is really necessary at the county level. It ' s up to the commission. Counties tend to piggyback a lot of their things based on what happens at the state level. It may or may not apply. I don't know. I can ' t think of any agency in the county offhand. MR. TRULSON: We have had input from approximately ten organizations that are requesting some kind of a sunset law to do away with certain agencies or what have you that are no longer necessary but are still being funded. MR. SCHUTTE : If the county council is to do that, they are on top of it anyway, they would have made funding for that so they could also delete that problem. MR. TRULSON: There is no provision in the charter for them to do so. MR. SCHUTTE: There doesn 't have to be since they make the appropriations anyway. MR. TRULSON: Yes, but politicians tend to keep things going that they want to keep going where if they are mandated where they have to review all these commissions and boards or whatever it is perhaps then they will come up more before the public and it will be eliminated. -92- MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Nakamae' s proposal with regard to this is not for review of any agency or anything that is established in the charter but merely for programs. If any appropriation is made and funding is there but yet it is not used, there are ways that this program can be rolled over and rolled over and become a cash cow, if you will , to other things if necessary. I don ' t know, specifically, but there is an agricultural appropriation that is about twelve years old, I understand, that is just rolling over in the budget. Programs would be like idea funding or maybe a special office to study whatever it may be. These would definitely be different than agencies and I think the intent of Mr. Nakamae ' s charter amendment proposal , as he has it here, and that is the one you read, I take it, but it was specifically to force the review of these programs and to clean them up. MR. TRULSON: Perhaps the wording of Mr. Moss will clarify what I was trying to say. He says that the sunset _law_calls for mandatory review of all programs of the county government. The ones that are not productive or archaic can be discarded or streamlined, and we can concentrate on things that we want to do now rather than what somebody else thought should have been done five, six, seven years ago. MR. CADINHA: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman. MR. ISHIDA: What is the form of the motion now? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is to adopt the sunset law into the charter and that legal counsel to determine the proper place to put it in the charter and the appropriate wording. MR. CADINHA: Bud, didn 't you specifically word it as Mr. Nakamae. MR. TRULSON: I did. MR. CADINHA: Is that not specifically the insertion you want? MR. TRULSON: No, it was amended because counsel thought it was not appropriate, I believe, so I amended it. As long as the intent is that we have a sunset law, that a review be every four years. The counsel to do the wording. The wording doesn 't have to be exactly the same as long as the intent is there. MR. CADINHA: Is your intent to review agencies and departments? MR. TRULSON: That was not my intent. My intent was the sunset law is for programs. That is what I meant. -93- MR. OMONAKA: I think Mr. Nakamae' s position at the time was that it was kind of a nightmare for him to keep track of all these things. So, this is why, I think he made the request. MR. ISHIDA: I think the fact is this motion, if I understand Bud ' s motion is that you are not asking that these programs be automatically terminated, but at least every four years the council review everything, all the programs. This is so that they will be kept current because what I think happens the council doesn ' t review these things. If theYfind there is merit in any program, I am sure they will continue it. If not, they will terminate it. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Nakamae says every program. He doesn ' t say agencies or departments. Perhaps that is misleading just by saying programs. It is just an idea more than it has to be just that wording. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everybody understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - Omonaka, Iwamoto, Ishida, Yanaga Schutte, Sensano, - 2 Trulson , Sakata - 8 Absent - Yagong - Carried. 1 SECTION 10-9 MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Section 10-9. I made a brief reference regarding appropriations and the reduction in transfer of appropriations within an agency. SECTION 10-5 CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Cadinha, let' s go back to 10-5 beforewe continue with 10-9. MR. SCHUTTE: I move that we_ adopt 10-5 , Operating - Budget: Council Action, as is® , MRS. IWAMOTO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 10-5 , Operating Budget: Council Action, as is. Any discussion? Question? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Absent - Yagong Iwamoto, Kobayashi, - 1 Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. -94- - r SECTION 10-9 MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Getting back to 10-9 where the reduction in transfer of appropriations within an agency now can be done by the mayor. I have mentioned concern insofar as this, the looseness of this is and I would like to know what- my: fellow commissioners feel as to whether. . .there have been some opinions that perhaps we should reword it and there are other opinions that perhaps we should just make definite notice to the intent of the charter here and let the council be the policing action on this rather than make it a charter item. I am not sure what the wish is, if any, of the commission. I would like to throw it out for discussion. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that Mr. Cadinha mention his intent. Could you relate to the members here on your intent or what the intent should be? I presume you are referring to the bottom of the section. MR. CADINHA: Yes. Does everybody understand what the appropriation problem is, or potential problem is? As the charter now stands, and my questioning of the mayor and it was a matter of minutes and I referred to June 19, page 16 and 17, if you have those minutes. The mechanics are set up so that someone in the mayor' s position.. . I am not pointing fingers at the good Mayor Matayoshi, but someone in that position could move dollars around. For example, let ' s just say an administrative budget calls for the addition of 100 policemen around the island and those new bodies or those new 100 policemen are justified on the basis of population or crime rate, or what have you in specific locations, let ' s say 10 in Ka'u, or 20 in Kona, and 20 in Hamakua, and Hilo and all the way around the island. If the council passes on that appropriation and funds the 100 policemen, from that point on there is no control. Kona could find 95 policemen and Ka'u may not get theirs. Hamakua may not get theirs. As the thing is written now. That is an extreme case, I only mentioned that so that it can highlight the flexibility that is written in here. So there is a lot of room for maneuvering or positions do not have to be filled if they are appropriated. If the need is established within a given agency fora given area for x number of patrolmen, that need does not have to be filled, and _it can go- onand ' become an unencumbered appropriation and be used elsewhere. . .As the charter is written now. - Now I am throwing this situation out to the commission. Do we want to give that latitude and keep it the way it is and give that latitude to the administration or do we want to tie it down. This happens to be the source of the budget problem right now between the council and the mayor. Specifically, this, and the council has submitted a more restricted budget saying you cannot jump and move these appropriations around. The mayor has vetoed it and right nowunderstand it is with the corporation counsel to deter- mine legality insofar as whether the county council can act and force the mayor to tie down his appropriations more. -95- Now, certainly, in the legality aspect of it if it is written in the charter, I don' t think there is much question. If the intent is clearly made and it gets down to a legal opinion, I would guess, and correct me if I am wrong, I would guess that the intent would dictate the legal ruling. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. If I follow your reasoning also there is the problem of are you talking about a transferring of funds or personnel within an agency? MR. CADINHA: Is there a difference? MR. TRULSON: Possibly. At the present time, in another argument too is that the mayor by charter can transfer funds within a department or an agency. The charter is silent as to whether the council may do the same thing. It doesn ' t say they can ' t. It doesn't say they can. Corp counsel has come out with an opinion stating that the council cannot. MR.' SCHUTTE: , Mr. Chairman. I think what Harlan is trying to put across is the intent of the appropriations. What he is saying is that a request for x number of dollars for a particular agency made to council and as long as it is kept within a particular agency, it can be used in any particular area within that agency. It doesn ' t necessarily have to be, as you mentioned 100 policemen as an example, 30 in Ka' u, 20 in. . .in other words, the council made this appropriation available because they saw the need for filling these particular positiorin these various areas and after the council votes on it and appropriates this amount of dollars, the mayor;would' have the opportunity to defray that appropriation to-all to Kona, all to Ka'u, or all to Hilo which is not the intent of the appropriation. Is that right? MR. CADINHA: Basically, that is right. MR. SCHUTTE: We are looking at is what we are defining in intent of the appropriation and restricting the mayor to that intent. MR. CADINHA: More specifically, I think the intent of the charter is to allow an easy balancing and ending of funds. If one appropriation is short by a couple thousand dollars within an agency, it is an administrative aid to be able to transfer from another appropriation very quickly to tie it up. So the charter is worded that way but interpretation, if one wanted to, could go way beyond that an&;you could- have these shifts. I 'm jest asking you whether you--want that to continue or not. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oda, is it possible to change the wording any to allow more control yet not. . .it seems to me that if you say the mayor cannot move any moneys at all within departments. . .sure; we don ' t want the 95 policemen all to be in Kona or wherever it is , but it seems to be if you said he couldn 't do it, you -would also tie his hands so much that there would be no flexibility to move at all. So isn ' t there any way to get around that? -96- MR. ODA: I am still a little confused as to whether Harlan is saying only the. funds within an agency or are you talking, about inter-agency transfers, only with those within an agency? Okay. Well, I haven ' t heard of any executive, state, county, or otherwise, that doesn ' t have that power. Let me put it that way. It is something that is given to the executive and as part of the managerial and supervisorywherewithal that goes with the job, I guess, so that he can control the programs and philosophies of his administration to the extent that he may want. Of course, if you folks decide otherwise, that you would like to restrict him, that is something else, but I haven 't seen anything like what .has been proposed, to tie his hands, so to speak. I think it will be a first of a kind. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cadinha, are you suggesting perhaps that although the mayor has this power that it should be controlled or a check and balance on it by having the council approve. . . MR. CADINHA: Bud, I don ' t know. It is an area that can be misused. I:t' s interpretation that could be expanded to quite a bit but yet I don ' t know how to tie it down. You don ' t want to restrict a person and practically speaking I think if I were mayor I would want the ability to do some transferring myself, I know that. MR. TRULSON: The mayor stated, I believe, the last time he was here, that to restrict him in this ability say he had to have council confirmation or approval for every transfer of funds within an agency, he would be stifled because he may need it now and he is going to have to wait two weeks perhaps for them to have a vote on it. Another thing, is it possible to put a control on this by ordinance? MR. CADINHA: That is what is up in the air, right now. As I understand it, basically, that is what is up in the air, right now. _Whether they can or. . . MR. ISHIDA: I was going to suggest that maybe if we really want to do something like that we could authorize that such can be done by law, by ordinance. It is up to the council as to how they want to limit it but whether we want to give the council that complete carte blanche authority, I don ' t know. Maybe we should limit the authority that the council can act so that there is definite leeway for the mayor. MR. CADINHA: I personally' think that we should not touch this section but I think that we should make sure that the minutes are duly noted that the intent of the charter if you all feel this way, is really to give that administrative leeway necessary to run a smooth ship and not to transfer large amounts and to change the nature of appropriations by districts past the extent of facilitating matters. -97- MR. SCHUTTE: As an example, withthe proposed council. . .two district seats in Hilo, two at-large seats possibly coming from Hilo, they get the majority. Say, for instance, the mayor wanted to come in and request for dollars for something in Kau or Kona or Hamakua. . .so he comes in and requests x number of positions for the Hilo area and as a result he gets confirmation for that request of funds but he does not have to fill that intent that he requested under this section. As a result, he has got an appropriation but this may`. be funded in another district. We don ' t mean to tie his hands entirely but how do we go about preventing the intent of an appropriation being misused? Do we just leave it as it is? MR. ODA: If the body that has the immediate concern over that problem is the county council they have a right to propose charter amendments, if they want, to put on the ballot, and if they feel it is of that much concern then, of course, I am sure they will take some kind of action on it by way of proposed charter amendment and send it to the electorate next year. I kind of feel it is very difficult to word something that hasn 't been asked of me, getting back to that question, to implement not knowing truly what the full effect of that kind of provision might be. Literally, I am afraid to handle it, it is like a time bomb of some sort, because I really don 't understand what I would be doing in drafting a provision like that. It is something that is between the mayor and the council and if the council really feels they want to push their weight around a little bit they have every right to by way of a proposed charter ordinance, charter amendment. MR. TRULSON: The council also requested that we consider giving them the approval for transfer of funds. At the present time, just the mayor has that opportunity. MR. ODA: You run into the problem of separation of powers, Mr. Chairman. Once funds are appropriated to an executive agency by the legislative body which is the council those funds are given to the executive to administer as he sees fit with the, of course, appropriate budgetary constraints. Now, when the legislative body steps in and tries to say how the funds within the department are going to be moved around or shifted, you are going to get into areas of executive adminis- tration which is outside the:lboundary of legislation. So, you get into possible unconstitutional areas of powers of the county council. It is a very delicate situation. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept Section 10-9 as it reads. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 10-9 as is. Any more discussion? -98- MR. ISHIDA: I would just like the minutes to reflect the deep concern of the commission concerning that section as to what has been discussed. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Trulson, Omonaka, Noes - None Schutte, Ishida, Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Cadinha, Yanaga, - 1 Sensano, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 10-10 MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Section 10-10, Lapse of Appropriations. Per Mr. Nakamae ' s suggestions, and I read. . .the changes and additions I would recommend are procedural ones. They are specifically for this : ( 1 ) Redefining lapsing of appropriation for capital expenditure. The proposed amendment would lapse any unencumbered appropriation at the end of two fiscal years following the fiscal year of the appropriation. Now an appropriation can remain on the books indefinitely as long as some expenditure of the appropriation was made. In other words, if a $100 thousand dollar appropriation is passed by council and ten of it is spent and the funding is stopped, it stays on the books. There is ninety of it that just stays on the books. What Mr. Nakamae is saying, after two years that should lapse. Section 10-10, before I make a motion, counsel, the last sentence. . .The purpose of any such appropriation for a capital expenditure shall. . .and I recommend we delete. . .be deemed abandoned. . .and insert the word, lapse. . .if two years pass without any expenditure from, or encumbrance of, the appropriation concerned. Now, would that satisfy Mr. Nakamae's intent, or do you want to work on it? MR.HODA: The purpose of such appropriation shall lapse if two years pass without any. . .if they spend one cent, it doesn 't lapse. Is the intent to spend all of it? MR. CADINHA: No, the intent is to lapse it if it isn 't spent. MR. ODA: You might be promoting wasteful expenditures. Just to spend it. MR. CADINHA: Yes, but why would you appropriate it unless there was a purpose? -99- MR. ISHIDA: Isn ' t this why we wanted the sunset provision? To reexamine all these programs? If we leave it as it is, does it really matter? MR. CADINHA: I think it does because things have a tendency of rolling on. MR. ISHIDA: The council will have to review these programs. MR. CADINHA: Yes, except when it comes up with the new budget, it comes in as income. A program that has been funded, partially spent, comes in as income for the next year. I feel that the budgeting process should be more credible, doggone, if you are going to go out and budget for funds to be spent, there should be a good reason and if that reason is passed, the money ought to be spent for it. MR. ISHIDA: So, what are you trying to state with this. provision then? MR. CADINHA: is that if it isn ' t spent in two years, there is no money. Rather than indefinitely rolling over an appropriation with perhaps some other purpose later on that you don ' t have to budget. MR. ODA: How do you expect to deal with partial expenditures? MR. ISHIDA: Especially capital expenditures? MR. CADINHA: What ;doyouu mean, how do you expect to deal with it? MR. ODA: Do they lapse? MR. CADINHA: According to what Mr. Nakamae recommends, yes, and I understand that. MR. SCHUTTE: How would that work if you go out and if you have appropriations made, say, for some construction, the preliminary plans are drawn and so much money has been pat ;out- for that and in the next year some more money is put out but the maximum amount is still there. If we were to put that in that the funds would lapse, yet the project is still moving. . . MR. CADINHA: His actual verbiage gets down to unencumbered. If an expenditure that is contracted that is going to go ahead and is not through in two years. . . MR. SCHUTTE: What would happen now if the county plans every year appropriates so many dollars and the total appropriations are made and so much is made for this year and a portion put out this year for preliminary plans and the following year the same situation, but you still have -100- 1 this lapse and the total amount that has been appropriated has not been all used, what happens then? MR. CADINHA: Those are encumbered. If the project is still valid and ongoing, the funds are not unencumbered. If you have, let ' s say, an appropriation for $100 thousand dollars for a park that includes two tennis courts and a volleyball court or something and it is appropriated and in the design of the park they find blue rock and they can ' t build a volleyball court, okay, so instead of a $100 thousand dollar, they build a $70 thousand dollar park, there is thirty there and what Mr. Nakamae's proposal is. . .that $30 thousand dollars should lapse, it shouldn ' t just be carried on in the books and at some later date find its way into Parks and Recreation or just carried on. This is really a tidying up provision, we don ' t have to have it but it seems to make sense to me. I think that is his intent. Not encumbered appropriations. MR. ISHIDA: I follow what you are saying but I don ' t think the revision of. . .shall be deemed abandoned. . . and substituting. . .lapse. . .really solves it because the way it is written now, in essence, I think , it lapses. The last sentence modifies the sentence above. How would you read that, Stuart? It doesn ' t use the word, lapse, it says, shall continue. . .until the purpose has been accomplished or abandoned. . . MR. CADINHA: Mr. Nakamae specifically recommended verbiage, right at the end of that Section 10-10, to be added that would say that is not, encumbered shall lapse at the end of two fiscal years following the fiscal year that the appropriation was made. Do you want to take his suggestion? MR. ISHIDA: I think that last one you said adds to this then? That language, I think, is all right. MR. CADINHA: Section 10-10 will read as it reads, right now, but the last sentence would read this way: The purpose of an appropriation for a capital expenditure that is not encumbered shall lapse at the end of two fiscal years following the year that the appropriation was made. MR. ISHIDA: That phrase is to be added to the present? What are you deleting? MR. CADINHA: Where it says an appropriation for a capital expenditure. .,..delete, .shall. . .and delete all the way.. from,. ther.e. . .and. .add. ...that .is. not encumbered shall lapse at the end oftwo fiscal years following the year that the appropriation was made. Stuart, if you want to work with that? I don ' t care how it is worded, I understand his intent. -101- MR. ODA: I don ' t understand what we are accomplishing by that. Maybe something is flying by me that I don 't catch. MR. ISHIDA: The majlc word is unencumbered. MR. ODA: I don 't gather the full scope of what you mean by unencumbered. MR. CADINHA: Unencumbered means not currently earmarked to a project. Once appropriated, partially used, leftovers, if you will. His intent is to clear those off the books after two years when the original appropriation was made. MR. ISHIDA: In other words, if we don ' t have this provision and they spend one cent every two years, the money is still there. Unencumbered means the project is already through and these are leftover funds from an earlier appropriated project. MR. CADINHA: Rather than be left there if it is to be used within that same agency, if you will, or somehow used, it should be cleaned up. If the money is to be earmarked for something else it should be in the form of a new appropriation. It is just a tidying up thing. MR. ISHIDA: Is there a motion on the floor? MR. CADINHA: I hadn 't made a motion, I was checking the verbiage before I did. MR. ODA: We already have the word encumbrance . . .without any encumbrance of. .expenditure from, or encumbrance of. MR. SCHUTTE: As near as I can see, Stuart, is that Mr. Nakamae is tying down the two years commencing from a specific date. As it mentions here it doesn' t tie down the two years from a specific date. MR. ODA: It doesn 't? It looks like it does. MR. SCHUTTE: Read Nakamae' s proposal , Harlan. MR. CADINHA: Section 10-10, as he is proposing it, verbatim: Lapse of appropriation. General appropriations, except an appropriation for a capital expenditure',, ,shall lapse at the close of the fiscal year to the extent that the same has not been expended or encumbered. An appropriation for a capital expenditure that is not encumbered shall lapse at the end of two years fol owing the fiscal year that the appropriation was made. MR. ODA: I think it says the same thing in a different way. Maybe it is more specific than the present language. -102- MR. CADINHA: The present language allows it to exist if any expenditure has been made for that appropriation that can_ be rolled. Stanley' s recommendation is to remove that and I move that we accept Mr. Nakamae' s recommendation with respect to Section 10-10. MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 10-10 with the recommendation of Mr. Nakamae with respect to that section. Any further discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - Omonaka - 1 Sensano, Schutte, Ishida, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Cadinha - 1 Sakata - 9 Carried. SECTION 10-11 MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Section 10-11, once again, our good Finance Director, the verbiage there has to do with small obligations, payments and he feels that the Director of Finance, as it states now, shoulders the entire responsibility for funds that are there within these agencies in small amounts of money. He is suggesting that we change the word certify thverify, which isn ' t quite as strong and that the agency heads first verify the fact that the moneys are available. He feels it is their budget and if they want checks written on their budget they should verify the fact that there is money there. That is basically the change that he has. So, with respect to Section 10-11, third sentence would read, under this proposal. . .No payment shall be made against any allotment or appropriation unless the director of finance first verifies that there is sufficient unencumbered balance in the allotment or appropriation and that sufficient funds therefrom are available to cover the claim concerned ; nor shall any obligation be incurred against any allotment or appropriation unless the agency_head first _verifies that there is sufficient unencumbered balance, and so on and so forth. The changes would be to delete the two words, /certifies7and replace those words with verifies and to delete the /director "of-finance7 and replace that with agency head. I move that we adopt Section 10-11 with the slight modifications as recommended by Mr. Nakamae. MR. SCHUTTE: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 10-11 with the modifications as recommended by Mr. Nakamae. Any further discussion? -103- MR. TRULSON: Discussion. With these modifications to Section 10-11 as recommended, will it necessitate a new amendment to Article X? Mr. Nakamae also has proposed an amendment, I think, which follows these changes in 10-11. I think he is proposing related to centralized purchasing. MR. CADINHA: That is something else, again. MR. TRULSON: It has not correlation with this? MR. CADINHA: No, these are for minor. . . MR. ISHIDA: That was going to be my one question. How would the agency head verify that because aren' t the records to be kept by the finance director anyway? So, practically speaking, he is going to the finance director and saying, do I have money? I have? I certify it. I think this is what would happen anyway, so I don 't see really what we are solving. MR. CADINHA: I think that the authorization to spend the money out of the budget that is approved really is departmental. In other words, public works, if it has a budget of so and so, Ed can come down and say, I have ordered twenty lengths of two inch pipe, buy it, and gives that purchase requisition and so on, and the director of finance. . . MR. ISHIDA: He would just check to see if the money was there to cover that whether it is okay or not. MR. CADINHA: I think what he is looking for is accountability from the department heads. MR. ISHIDA: I can 't see how this would improve the situation because the agency head will still have to go down to the finance department and say, how much money do we have left. ."' Practically, I can't see what it does. MR. TRULSON: I think he is looking at the smaller purchases that become a encumbrance upon- the director of finance to have to verify every single small purchase. I think he explains that in his justification to the section. For the benefit of those who don' t have it, would you like me to read his justification for these changes? MR. CADINHA: Go ahead. MR. TRULSON: The present charter provision places that responsibility upon the director of finance to certify the availability of funds for all purchases and obligations, no matter how small. In our decentralized system, appropriations are made for programs and agencies and agency heads are authorized to spend their appropriations but the major part of these appropriations are frozen. For example, salaries comprise 60% of the total budget and 80% of the agency budgets. The large purchases over $4,000 expenses are processed through the purchasing agent and any form of -104- contract resulting therefrom must be served by the availability of funds by the director of finance, pursuant to Section 13-3 of the charter and Section 103-39, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Only small purchases of supplies, mileage expense, meals, motor pool charges, travel expenses and purchases under a price/term agreement outside our incumbent system would be cumbersome, expensive and more red tape required if every obligation were to be first approved by the director of finance. The agency head should be the official to assume that the funds are available before the obligation is incurred and not the director of finance. The director must still verify the availability of funds before any claim is paid. Other counties do not have this requirement. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 10-11 with the modifications as recommended by Mr. Nakamae. Any further discussion on this? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Cadinha, Omonaka, Noes - None Schutte, Ishida, Iwamoto, Kobayashi, Absent - Yagong Sensano, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 10-12 MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept Section 10-12 as is stated in the charter. MR. SCHUTTE: Second. MR. TRULSON: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 10-12 as is stated in the charter. Any further discussion? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Omonaka, Sensano, Absent - Yagong ; Ishida, Schutte, - 1 Iwamoto, Kobayashi , Cadinha, Sakata - 10 Carried. -105- (At this point, the tape recording mechanism malfunctioned. During the period of the malfunction, the following votes were taken. ) SECTION 10-13 MR. SCHUTTE: Motion to accept Section 10-13. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Roll call vote on motion to accept Section 10-13 : Ayes - Cadinha, Ishida, Noes - None Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Yagong Kobayashi, Iwamoto, - 1 Yanaga, Schutte, Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. CENTRALIZED MR. SENSANO: Motion made. PURCHASING: MR, SCHUTTE: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Roll call vote on motion for centralized purchasing: Ayes - Cadinha, Ishida, Noes - None Sensano, Omonaka, Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Absent - Yagong Yanaga, Schutte, - 1 Trulson, Sakata - 10 Carried. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11: 33 p.m*. Next meeting date - Wednesday, July 11, 1979, 3:00 p.m. , Hawaii County Councilroom. 4IPtv _ /Joan Carnett, RECORDING SECRETARY --106- RECALL Section . Recall Procedure. In addition to impeachment procedures, any elective officer may be removed ftun office by the voters of the county. The procedure to effect such removal shall be in accordance with this article. A petition demanding that the question of removing such official be submitted to the voters shall be addressed to the council and filed with the county clerk. (a) A petition demanding recall of an official elected at-large, or by voters of the entire county, as the case may be, shall be signed by not less than twenty percent (200) of the total number of persons who voted/registered in the last general election. (b) A petition demanding recall of a district council- man shall be signed by not less than twenty percent (20%) of the total number of persons who voted/registered in his district in the last general election. Section .. Petitions. Petition papers shall be procured only from the county clerk, who shall keep a sufficient number of such blank petition papers on file for distribution as herein provided. Prior to the issuance of such petition papers, an affidavit shall be made by one or more voters and filed with the clerk, stating the name and office of the officer sought to be removed. Section . Signatures. Each signer of a recall petition shall sign his name and shall place thereon after his name, his place of residence and voting precinct. To each such petition paper there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof, stating the number of signers to such part of the petition and that each signature appended to the paper was made in his presence and is believed to be the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be, and that each signer understood the nature of the recall petition. Section . Filing and Certification. All papers comprising a recall pe- tition shall be assembled and filed with the county clerk as one instrument within thirty (30) days after the filing, with the clerk, of the affidavit stating the name and office of the officer sought to be removed. Within ten(10)days from the date of the filing of such petition, the clerk shall determine the sufficiency thereof and attach thereto a certificate showing the result of his examination. If the clerk shall certify that the petition is insufficient, he shall set forth in the certificate the particulars in which the petition is defective, and shall return a copy of the II certificate to the person designated in such petition to receive it. • Section . Supplemental Petitions. In the event the initial petition contained insufficient signatures,such recall petition may be supported by supple- mental signatures of voters signed in the manner required in section 12-3 of this article appended to petitions issued, signed, and filed as required for the original petition at any time within twenty (20) days after the date of the certificate of insufficiency by the clerk. The clerk shall within ten (10) days after such supple- mental petitions are filed make a like examination of them, and if his certificate shall show the same to be still insufficient, he shall return it in the manner described in section 12-4 of this article to the person designated in such petition to receive the same, and no new petition for the recall of the officer sought to be removed shall be filed within one year thereafter. Recall Election.. If a recall petition or Section supplemental petition shall be certified by the clerk to be sufficient, he shall at once sdbmit the same with his certi- ficate to the council and shall notify the officer sought to be recalled of such action. If the official whose removal is sought does not resign within ten (10) days after such notice, the council shall thereupon order and fix a day for holding a recall election. Any such election shall be held not less than sixty (60) nor more than ninety (90) days after the petition has been presented to the council, at 1 • the same time as any other special election held within such period, the council shall call a special recall election to be held within the time aforesaid. If less than fifty per- cent (50%) of the total number of persons who voted/regis- tered in the last general election shall vote at such election to recall an official elected at-large, or by voters of the entire county, as the case may be, or in the case of a recall of a district councilman, if less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of persons who voted/registered in his district in the last general election shall vote at such recall election, the officer sought to be recalled shall not be deemed recalled. Section . Ballots. The ballots at such' recall election shall, with respect to Pesch persons whose removal is sought, submit the question: "Shall (name of person) be removed frau the office of (name of office) by recall?" If a majority of the electors qualified to vote on the question at a recall election vote "Yes", the elected officer shall be deemed recalled and removed fran office, subject to the provisions of Section (Recall Election) of this article. Section . Succeeding Officer. The incumbent, if not recalled in such election, shall continue in office for the remainder of his unexpired teen subject to the recall as before, except as provided in this charter. If recalled in the recall election, he shall be deemed removed frau office upon the announcement of the official canvass of that elec- tion, and the office shall be filled as provided by this charter for the filling of vacancies of elected officials. The successor of any persons so removed shall hold office during the unexpired term of his predecessor. Section Immunity to Recall. The question of the removal of any officer shall not be submitted to the voters until such person has served six (6) months of the term during which he is sought to be recalled, nor, in case of an officer retained in a recall election, until one year after that election. Y'J'd June 27 , 1979 Section 3-8 . Organization of the Council; Officers ; Employees. (c) The council may hire necessary staff to provide legal and research assistance to the council on all matters related to its deliberations or duties . Such legal and research assist- ance shall be exclusively advisory or in a consultative capacity to the council. No staff attorney shall represent the council or its members in any litigation, nor shall the staff issue any formal or other opinion on any legal matter which shall override any related opinion from the office of the corporation counsel. The said staff shall not perform any duties that may be incon- sistent or in conflict with that of the corporation counsel. All staff attorneys shall be appointed by the presiding officer of the council, subject to the approval of a majority thereof. Except as to any staff attorney, who shall be licensed to practice and in good standing before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, merit principles shall apply to the selection of the remaining staff pursuant to law. All employees shall serve under the direct supervision of the presiding officer of the council. The salaries of the staff shall be fixed by ordinance. •i li K^ June 27, 1979 Section 5-2. 3. Powers, Duties and Functions. Except as specified in Section 3-8 (c) of this charter, the corporation counsel shall be the chief legal advisor and legal representa- tive of all county agencies, employees, and officers in matters related to their official powers and duties. He shall represent the county in all civil legal proceedings and shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law. He shall, however, be prohibited from representing any elected officer in impeachment proceedings. June 27 , 1979 (shifting of provisions are not indicated; only addtions and deletions are) Note: Proposal to make the Department of Water Supply Article V Chapter 6 , and move the present Chapter 6 , Miscellaneous, to Chapter 7 . ARTICLE V CHAPTER 6 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY Section 5-6. 1. Organization. There shall be a department of watdr supply consisting of a board of water supply, a director [of the department] of water supply and the necessary staff. Section 5-6 . 2. Director. The director [of the department] of water supply shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor. The director shall have had a minimum of five years of training and experience in a responsible administrative capacity, either in public service or private business or both. Section 5-6 . 3 . Powers , Duties and Functions [of the Department] . The director [of the department] of water supply shall : (a) Be the administrative head of the department of water supply. (b) Recommend regulations to the board of water supply. (c) Have such other powers and duties as may be provided by [law] ordinance or as may be assigned by the mayor or Board of Water Supply. In addition, all water and sanitary sewerage systems of the county, including water rights and water sources, together with all materials , supplies and equipment and all real and personal property used or useful in connection with such water and sanitary sewerage systems , shall be under the control of the department. Section 5-6. 4. Board of Water Supply. The board of water supply shall consist of seven members who shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council [for terms of five years] in the manner prescribed in Section 13-4 . Commission membership shall be representative of the community and of the county geographical areas of Puna, Ka'u, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo. In addition, the planning director and the [director of public works] chief engineer of the county or their designated representatives shall serve as [be non-voting] ex-officio members of the board [of water supply] without power to vote. The board of water supply shall: (a) Adopt rules and regulations relating to the management, control, operation, preservation and protection of the water- works and sanitary sewerage systems of the county to be approved by the mayor. (b) Prepare and submit to the mayor a request for an annual operating and capital improvement budget. The water board ' s capital improvement projects shall be consistent with the county' s general plan and shall be processed through the county ' s planning department. (c) Recommend to the county council water and sanitary sewerage .. rates. Section 5-6 . 5. Revenues . The revenues derived by the department of water supply shall be kept in a separate fund and shall be such as to make said department self-supporting.