Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-07-11 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 26th Session July 11, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The twenty-sixth session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 3: 17 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii by Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Richard Ishida Mrs. Amy Iwamoto Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira Omonaka Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte Mr. Herman Sensano Mr. Joseph Trulson Mr. Matsuo Yanaga ‘Nr-z• (j a >L Lt 0 y I o N-I Absent Mr. Harlan Cadinha and Excused: Also Mr. George Tamashiro, Lt. Governor' s Office Present: Mr. William W. Moss, West Hawaii Committee Mr. Frank Zuzak, West Hawaii Committee Mr. James Nottage;'_ .Exchange_Club of _Kona Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Ms. Frances Higa, Research Assistant Mrs. Joan Carnett, Secretary BUSINESS CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Will someone amend the Rules OF THE DAY: of Procedure so that we may go into the Business of the Day and testimony from our guests. MR. TRULSON: I so move. MR. SCHUTTE : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we amend the Rules of Procedure and go into testimony from our guests. All in favor? Ayes carried. WEST HAWAII The Chair called upon Mr. William W. Moss, COMMITTEE: representative of the West Hawaii Committee. MR. MOSS: Mr. Chairman., before I launch into my presentation, I would like to make one correction for the record. The letter from the West Hawaii Committee was signed by Mr. Charles P. Davies the Chairman of the West Hawaii Committee and not by me. I also would like to mention that since I prepared my remarks the Exchange Club of Kona has some additional remarks to make and I wonder if at the conclusion of my testimony whether Mr. James Nottage of the Exchange Club could be permitted the same privilege as , an extension of my remarks. In coming here today, I have been authorized to speak for the 'West Hawaii Committee, Kona Coast Chamber of Commerce, the Exchange Club of Kona, Kona Board of Realtors and Kona League of Republican Women. As we expressed in our letter to you, we don ' t believe the commission really appreciated the extreme effect the decision for a council of 7 with 5 directly elected from districts and 2 at-large would have on West Hawaii. Frankly, it would be a political disaster for the area which today pays 48% of the taxes of this county and next year will probably be paying 50% or more. Now, why would this be a, political disaster for West Hawaii? Because in effect it gives the region only one council member whereas under the present county council setup there are three representatives from West Hawaii. I call your proposal the new political mathematics because it says five plus two equals one. Five district members plus two at- large equals one for West Hawaii. How do we arrive at that? First, can we face one aspect as a fact at-large members basically come from Hilo so this means that Representative District #2, all of which is in South Hilo gets two directly elected council members plus two at-large for a total of four, an automatic majority on the county council. If the county were divided evenly to elect a 7 member council there should be one member for each 11,157 of the estimated population of the county or 1 per about every 5 ,680 voters. I mention both measures because your counsel, Mr. Oda, has repeatedly advised you of the impossibility of an equal balance and that you have to consider many aspects in setting up election _districts. So we show you the twin aspects because the balance between them gives a probably truer picture than either one alone. Under the commission proposal, we find that in District #1, Ka'u, Puna, and South Hilo, some of South Hilo, it wol ltake: 17,500 population to elect one council member, whereas in South Hilo, there would be four council members for a total population of approximately 30,000 or 7,500 per council member. population. This is a 2% to 1 spread and is very, very wide. If we go on the number of registered voters in those districts, we find again just about that same 22 to l spread, whereas it has shifted districts slightly. District #4, South Kohala, -2- North Kona and South Kona would one representative for every 9,000 voters, whereas South Hilo would have one representative for every 3,800 voters. Under the West Hawaii permanent proposal where we said that we thought the only fair way of setting up the county council was 9 people directly elected from equal districts you discover that we have managed to cut the spread in the inequality of numbers down tremendously. We find that a very cursory division of the county into 9 election districts with very little splitting of precincts that you can very easily get your spread from a high of a representative for every 9,000 population in the Puna/South Hilo District to a low of 8, 150 population in a district made up of Kawaihae and North Kona. It is kind of interesting that in that particular district when you look at the voters, you will discover that instead of being low, the number of voters per representative in that particular district is 10% higher than the average should be, which says one of two things. . .either there are more voters per population in that particular area or there is a lot more population than the official figures show, which I think I mentioned before we strongly suspect. We won 't know until the 1980 census figures are available in 1981. Incidentally, this same type of direct election from equal districts could be done equally easily for seven council members rather than nine, except, it would involve more splitting of traditional districts to try to form seven districts out of the island. The other proposal that we made to you was for a four year interim period until the 9 district setup could be implemented. We proposed that we elect 9 from the four representative districts with 2 from all the districts except for 3 from District #2, which is South Hilo. Here we do find a disparity in the number of people but it is nowhere near what it was under the proposal that you have tentatively decided to put into the charter. We find that we have a high of 10,000 people per population per council member to a low of about 7, 350. So, we have reduced the spread way below 21/2 to 1. We have reduced it to about 30%. Voter-wise it comes out even better. You have a spread of 5,1,0,0 voters per member to a low of around 3,500. It is apparent from these figures that the most fair, equitable method is the direct election from equal districts which was the West Hawaii permanent proposal , with the West Hawaii ' s interim proposal much fairer than the commission's 5 plus 2 proposal. Looking at the factual analysis of the various proposals, the political consequences to West Hawaii and considering the certain divisiveness that will accompany the adoption of the commission ' s present proposal and there is already too much distrust and complaint between East and West Hawaii, we strongly request a reconsideration and the subsequent adoption of a plan fair and equitable to all sections of the island. -3- In so doing, we believe that the length of time necessary for a proper solution should not be a limiting factor. As we understand it, there is nothing final about November 3 as the date for the special election. It is just a timetable , goal of this commission, whereas the true goal must be an improved charter of the people for the people of all Hawaii County. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views to you and as previously indicated, we remain available to you for any clarification or assistance. Thank you. I have copies of this for the record if you wish to have them. (Communication #79) I wonder if Mr. Nottage could be permitted to put on a few more explanatory words on behalf of the Exchange Club of Kona. MR. NOTTAGE: Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Nottage and I am a businessman, from Kona and I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you. I am representing the Exchange Club of Kona and I don 't think I am just representing them, I think there are a number of other people that would like to come forward and say the same thing. However, at this particular point it is the Exchange Club. The Exchange Club of Kona strongly feels that this commission has not considered the people of Hawaii but rather they have looked for and found the easy way out. With the public hearings which took up 40% of your time, your own time which was about 21%, we mean the time that you spent together without the public and about 37% of your time spent with the government. . .Of course, three of these were after the public hearings were held We feel you haven ' t given the public a fair share number ( 1 ) of your time, or, number (2) of your consideration. We feel that by giving an unequal share of power, if you would want to use that word; of votes, if you want to use that word; political clout, if you prefer that to other sections or to singular sections of the county, you are taking away from your obligation to all of us as individuals and as groups and we strongly feel that you should reconsider your position. I think, with the facts that have been presented to you today, I hope you do study the figures, especially on the population per vote basis since history of the United States is based on an equal representation--and I stress the word equal--and when that equal representation is not followed many things can happen. I am sure that you are all very well aware of them and I will not bring them up to you at this particular time. I just ask you, as a group, on behalf of the people that have asked me to come over here and speak for themto please reconsider your positions and realize what your duties are. Being on a commission, myself, in the past, I have raised my hand and pledged to do the best I could for the county and the people of Hawaii. I suggest that you consider that very strongly. Thank you very much, again, for letting me speak. I realize it is not the normal order. -4- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I would like to address Mr. Nottage. First of all, I, personally, resent the assumption from Mr. Nottage that this commission, . in general, is negligent in representing the people of this county. I think that is a very broad statement and I believe that my fellow commissioners here, although our views may differ from time to time, I do believe that in our own behalf we feel that what we are doing here is for the benefit -of the county. So, I would appreciate it if you would not assume, in general , that this commission is negligent in looking at these problems. MR. NOTTAGE: Mr. Schutte. I do apologize. I realize that there was a very close vote on this issue which is one of our major considerations and because of the closeness of this vote I cannot do anything but apologize to you because there were a number of people who, I feel, very strongly, were looking out for the interests of all the people in this county. Thank you, very much, for bringing that to my attention. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss, I have your note that you sent in by Mrs. Isbell. I think you mentioned-here that the recommendations by your group is that 9 councilmen be elected- from -the present four representative districts, none at-large until the reapportionment. . . MR. MOSS: I don 't think I quite got your point, Mr. Schutte, I 'm sorry. Are you saying that that was not part of Mrs. Isbell ' s original. . MR. SCHUTTE: No, I am saying and this is out of the text. . .it says that these 9 as a recommendation by her and the people she represents says that she suggests that 9 councilmen be elected from the present four representative districts until such time that the reapportionment is made separating it into the nine districts. . . MR. MOSS: I .don' t believe Mrs. Isbell proposed that, to tell you the truth, however, it was the final agreement of the West Hawaii groups that took out the advertise- ment in the paper and to which we testified to ,"in the- public hearing in Kona. That advertisement was made part of the record of the commission. MR. SCHUTTE: I am just reading it off the communication that she provided us with when she appeared beforeus i didn ' t know whether you were aware of it. . . MR. MOSS: Yes, I referred to it a little while ago with the nine people coming from the four representative districts. This is a less of a spread in voters per representative per council member than the tentative proposal of the commission, the tentative conclusion of the commission at the moment. -5- MR. SCHUTTE: What I am trying to do, Mr. Moss, is narrow this thing down to the point of what you are actually requesting now and if I can see what you are suggesting that the four representative districts be used and the 9 councilmen be elected from these districts up until the census is taken and the reapportionment is done, after which time there will be nine districts. MR. MOSS : I think you are correct, Mr. Schutte. Our primary goal is a permanent solution which would have nine election districts evenly divided up for the island with. a council of nine people. The interim is less important to us than the ultimate goal of the nine equal districts and with direct election and no at-large election. The proposal for the interim was a way of getting there and keeping your nine council members, as we have, at present. MR. SCHUTTE: Then you are asking this commission to reconsider and to adopt this proposal. . . MR. MOSS: We would very much like to see that done, yes. MR. SCHUTTE: You are not. askingat this time that we actually do the reapportioning ourselves. . . . MR. MOSS: No, I think that rightfully belongs to a reapportionment commission which its only duty, as I understand it, is to draw up the lines of equal population districts and then you can provide, it seems to me, an interim method of electing the council and say that starting with the election of 1984 that it will be done in a permanent fashion from thereon. MR. SCHUTTE : Okay, thank you, very much. I just wanted to get at what your intent was. . . MR. MOSS: Yes, sir, the interim proposal was based on the convenience of the fact that the representative districts are here today. They are reasonably. contiguous. . They are reasonably even--they are not really terribly even but they are better than anything else that is available at the moment and as Mr. Oda has said sometimes, if it has never been challenged .We elect the State Representatives from those districts, they are probably legal districts. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I realize your groups have read the minutes of the_ past meetings and you know there were different proposals that were considered besides the 5-2 makeup. There was the interim one that you spoke of. Also there was the option to leave it the way it is until the new census and reapportionment. There was a third one proposed by Mr. Schutte and that is where 5 councilmen are elected from the 4 districts and two from District #2 with a residency requirement in that district and 1 councilman--4 at-large, but each one has a residency requirement in the district. I would like your thoughts on that. —6— MR. MOSS: Well, first, let me say that it would be a more satisfactory one than the tentative decision. However, we still are very much opposed to any at-large - election. Even if you take some of the sting out of it by saying they have to live, be from the district. However, at the same time, in setting up this charter, you have taken some of that out because you have practically eliminated the residency requirement. . .any time frame that the man has to have lived in the district before he can run from it. I realize there were a lot of different proposals. I also would like to apologize slightly for some of the language in the letter. When this letter was written, we did not have the minutes of the meeting at which you voted on the tentative proposal and adopted it. As a matter we get of fact, didn 't them until four days after this letter was on its way. I realize that at that last meeting, there was some brief discussion of our 9 district proposal, at that time. But to us it seemed, even reading it, that it was kind of cursory and that our proposal never really got properly discussed in either the subcommittee or the commission, itself. MR. TRULSON: Another thing that I recall from the past minutes and that was on the one-man, one-vote and your feelingwas that and I can ' t really :recall just what group, but they were looking at how many councilmen each individual voter could vote for like in Mr. Schutte' s proposal each voter, theoretically, is voting for five councilmen, or a majority. I believe that was one of your concerns. . . MR. MOSS: Yes, we had some advice when we were formulating our policy that at this level of government, the county council level of government, a figure of about 10,000 population per member was a rather commonly accepted figure. Obviously, you don 't get exactly 10,000 per member. We have a population of say roughly 80,000 in the county at the present time. Nine members says that you will have about 9,000 per representative if you have nine members. That was one factor in our recommendation for a council of nine. The other is that it gives a sufficient number of people to properly man.. the necessary council committees. . .the planning committee, the committee on public works, the parks and recreation committee. Those and the finance committee. So . that a few councilmen aren ' t burdened down in serving on all committees but there are enough people and they can be distributed through the committees and do their homework with- out being unduly pressured by the amount of work that they are expected to do. After all , the council members are not full time employees. They have their own business and their own activities to look after as well as those of the county. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss, as far as your proposal is concerned, are you basing it on the fact that the registered voters should be taken into consideration? -7- MR. MOSS: Yes, the proposal. . .oh, no, not really, I used that as one of the measures, I think , Mr. Oda said that there are in explaining how districts are made up and what is considered proper, that you look at a lot of factors, not only the. . .if you don ' t have a good population count, there' are other, ways of setting up the districts. I show the voters, basically, in my figures because they do show somewhat different situations than we get from the official population estimate of the county right now. As I say, either there are a lot more people in South Kohala, North Kona and South Kona than appear on the official estimates or else they are unusually politically minded over there which I really don 't think is a fact, to tell you the truth. We find that there are a lot more voters per population in that area than there are, for instance, in South Hilo. MR. ISHIDA: The population count that you made reference to, is it based on what the county puts out? Is that correct? MR. MOSS: Yes, the figures I used came out of the County Data Book. I 'm not sure who draws them up, whether it is the state or whether it is the County Research and Development Department. MR. ISHIDA: Another point of clarification, Mr. Moss, in this communication signed by Mr. Davies, on page 2 it indicates that there was no public response favoring at-large election of council members. Is that your position, also, today? This is the third paragraph from the bottom. MR. MOSS: Page 2. I don ' t remember from the public meetings that there was any appreciable public support for at-large election of members. I 'know =at the Kona meeting there was no. . .the public support that was there seemed to be overwhelmingly in favor of our proposals. Two speakers did. . . one,,,excuse me, one speaker did testify that he wanted some at-large people but _1 didn ' t think that he got a very much of a reception from the audience that night. Considering that meeting, I was as surprised as anybody at the turnout and the backing--certainly, we beat the bushes a little bit. We put the ad in the paper. We tried to tell people what the issues were. I was really_ very,. very, amazed at the turnout and the apparent agreement 'of the audience with the general speakers. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Moss, you feel that if we have at-large councilmen, then , your primary point here from the West Hawaii groups is that you people are not being properly represented and Hilo is being over-represented. MR. MOSS: . Yes, I think the past election history, since the original charter was set upmust_ bear that out. I would like to point out that our 9 member business still leaves certainly at the present time, the political balance on the East side of the island, but, it is not over- whelming, by any means. And, as the population shifts, this balance will change and it all depends on which side of the island grows the fastest as to where the political balance should be. This is only right and proper. -8� MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss, I have been taking a look at a list of the number of people who have spoken in favor of at-large and we do have six people from West Hawaii who did so. I don ' t know how many people in all they represent but there were six. MR. MOSS: You mean at the public hearing that night? MR. TRULSON: At the public hearing in Kona and around, not specifically in Kona. . . . MR. MOSS: I guess you have done your homework a little better than I did. Do you happen to know how many of those were private people and how many were government? MR. TRULSON: I have their names but I don 't know that. There are more than six individuals that spoke in favor of at-large. . . MR. MOSS: If I may say one last word before we go. I really want to impress on you that besides the fact that we think it is the fair way to do it that the present plan really is, no question of it, it is a political disaster for our side of the island. It is just going to be one last straw in the relations between East and West Hawaii, really. I just think that we have to point that out to you very, very clearly. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss, is it possible that in ten years the present proposal would favor Kona. . . MR. MOSS: It is possible. I wouldn ' t really think it probable within the next ten years, until the next charter revision. Really, to me, that isn ' t the point. Because it says that if you have just a little bit of a majority, you will have tremendous control of the council. That is what the at-large thing does. It means automatic control. I wonder whether the people in Puna, or the people in Hamakua really like to give South Hilo, the City of Hilo, itself, an automatic majority of the county council. I wonder how they feel. I don 't have the finger on the pulse of those areas but it has struck me as maybe they don ' t like to be ruled strictly by the city any more than we do. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss,: could you explain for us what you mean by political balance? You mentioned that you are interested in having political balance. Now, what do you mean? Could you explain what political balance means? MR. MOSS: Did I hear that the question is to explain my thoughts on the political balance? Well, you have two members elected from the City of Hilo by 30 ,000 people. You have two at-large people elected from,basically dominated by that same area. Right there you have one small area that has four votes out of seven on the county council. They can control the county council , right there. So, as I say, -9- the City of Hilo, actually, by itself, has about 40% of the population of the island. About 30% of the population of the island is in West Hawaii , 30% of the population is in East Hawaii, but not in the City of Hilo,, but, by:v rtue of the at-large election, in the past--and I am just talking pragmatic history--that the at-large people basically come from Hilo, itself. So, they automatically get their four out of seven majority and they control the council, right there, when in reality they only have 40% of the votes but they have a control of the county government. MR. SENSANO: I am just wondering whether you are saying that to have proper representation, that it has to be strictly district. In your way of thinking, does that guarantee that each district will in actual working of the council guarantee that each district will be represented equally? What I am referring to is perhaps in the present council, I am not talking about districts, but I am talking about political party, we have a two party system where we have 7 councilmen belonging to one party and 2 are of a different party, but, yet, look at the line=up in the council. .......... The minority party apparently has power because the majority _ party"doesn ® t have the vice-chairmanship- of the council. I was just wondering whether in the final analysis, the individuals that each district will elect will determine whether we will be represented properly or not because once councilmen are in the council they will have to know how to play their politics. No matter how you divide the districts if the representativesfrom the districts do not play according to the rules in the council , they are not going to have the power that you expect them to have. MR. MOSS: Well , looking at the area of West Hawaii which, as I said, has 30% of the population,- under the present commission proposal , that area would have one representative, really, and he would be elected from District #4, which consists of South Kohala, North and South Kona. Now, Kohala,'presently has a member of the county council. Kona presently has a member of the county council. So, you have already eliminated one of those because you are allowing only one for those two areas and Ka'u has a representative on the county council. You eliminate him by District #1 which is Puna and parts of South Hilo and they swamp any vote from Ka'u. So, in effect, as I say, your 5 plus 2 proposal equals 1. It gives just one representative for West Hawaii out of the five. Whereas, today, we have three out of nine. MR. NOTTAGE: Just a little bit more toward this balance and equality of the vote. When the West Hawaii section has one vote, two other sections of the island have two votes. No matter how politically minded these individuals are, that is still a minority, if, in fact, one section of the island wishes to vote against them. Granted, political systems work by the barter system. . .you give me one and I will give you one kind of thing. . .and hopefully all of the politicians that are in office are going to be thinking let ' s give equally to every section. When, in fact, a person who wants to get voted -10- in the next time is going to be going, to the constituents in the area that he was voted in from. Now, if a person is voted into office from basically one area, he is going to consider that area over the other area. Now, when you have four people that are voted from that one area, that becomes very strong, the majority, and the outside lying places--and I use the word "'outside" very strong, are "outside. " Whether they are Republican or Democrats has very little to do with it and I agree with you, the party system is a great thing, but I do very honestly think we have to come up with an equal share for every vote, as close as we can. It is a hard job. I don ' t envy any of you sitting there, one bit, of what you have to come up with, but I think you guys can come up with a strong and much better proposal if you reconsider. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Moss, i certainly believe that the West Hawaii Committee' s address on district representation has been well received and should my fellow commissioners decide to move for reconsideration of reapportionment we will be very happy to consider your- proposal. ourproposal. MR. MOSS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Schutte. Any questions? other CHAIRMAN SAKATA: MR. SCHUTTE: Thank you, Mr. Moss. MR. MOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do we have anymore testimony from the audience? We' ll have a short recess. RECESS: At 4:Q2 p.m. the Chair called for a :short recess. RECONVENE: At 4: 15_ p.m. the -meeting wasreconvened. BALLOT CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will continue with the DESIGN: Business of the Day and ask George Tamashiro to address us on ballot design. MR. TAMASHIRO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you today. I do not have a presentation but rather I would like to cite some of the pros and cons of utilizing the punch card ballots for the special charter amendment ; election. Also, I will try to answer whatever questions you may have in the area of ballot design as well as election process. So, if I may, I would like to distribute some samples of prior charter amendment type ballots that I brought with me. -11- It is a little early, but actually this is the right time to start to consider your ballot design. I would like to first go over some of the pros, the plus side of using a punch _ .card ballot system. It is the State system. The voters are all familiar with the punch device, the ballot format, etc. It is accurate. It is reliable and you get timely results. It is tried and tested. As far as the cons or the minus side, as you can seethe ballots are of a certain physical size so you are very limited to the space: in terms of the wording in the amendment. You would have to be explicit as well as concise. You could have your supporting text in a separate brochure or supplement, you know, newspaper or other publication. Also, you are limited to the number of amendments that you may have. Let's say, if you have 50 amendments to your charter, obviously, you may have 10 or more cards involved and that would be very unwieldy. So, again, if you have too many amendments and if you do consider a paper ballot with the paper ballot you still have a problem of the counting, or tallying, the votes per amendment. As your paper ballot gets a lot more amendments on it you start to have human errors in the procedure where they are counting your votes. I know you have just a little time to digest what I have brought to you. I will be happy to answer any question and I will also be very happy to support the Clerk 's office to give you any kind of statistics or cost. figures or any other kind of information you may require. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, may I? Mr. Tamashiro, I notice that on your samples, here, of the various county charter ballots, there is no literal. . .the literal change of the charter provision is not on the ballot, itself. It is just a question with an explanatory provision. I assume that the literal change to the charter is going to be in a handout that is given to the voter. MR. TAMASHIRO: That 's , right. I didn ' t bring copies of all the brochures and the various types of publica- tions that other counties utilize but I will be happy to forward some to you. I brought some samples, if I may pass them among the members and if you do feel that I should forward all such material to you, I will be happy to do that. MR. ODA: We would appreciate some samples of that. Now, Mr. Tamashiro, if I can ask you a couple more questions. So, basically, in addition to the ballots themselves you automatically have to have a digest, or a full `_ text, as you say, to accompany the ballot, right? MR. TAMASHIRO: That ' s right. MR. ODA: Who does the actual wording of the items. . .the wording on the ballot, itself? MR. TAMASHIRO: I would assume that you would or have the County Clerk ' s office do it for the county. We would be happy to assist them in wording, etc. But, I would think for the commission that you would want to have one of your people, or a subcommittee,. -12- MR. ODA: Is there any limitation if card-- assuming card ballots are used--any limitations as to the number of amendments that can be incorporated into those ballots? MR. TAMASHIRO: We look• at about 7 ballots as becoming about the maximum. Seven cards, seven physical cards. MR. ODA: For each voter? MR. TAMASHIRO: For each voter. You can get on the average, if you look at the samples I passed out, you can get about 8 amendments on a ballot. MR. ODA: So 8 amendments on one side or two sides? MR. TAMASHIRO: Two sides. MR. ODA: So if you have the maximum would be about 56. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes. Let me cite the ConCon ballot that we had. The past Constitutional Convention ballot. That was very poorly designed. It caused a lot of confusion. They went from what, 102: or some‘ odd, amendments down to 34 for the voters to vote.So, obviously, they combined a lot of the amendments and the full text, again, was not_ readily available at the polls, so that was the other problem'. I feel if you are going to use the punch' card ballot , then please limit the amendments that you change to your major amendment rather than housekeeping and those language correcting amendments. MR. ODA: If you change, let ' s say, spellings of words and commas here and periods there and that kind of thing. There might have been a couple like that. MR. TAMASHIRO: You might go beyond the limit. If you are going to go upwards in fifty or plus amendments, you may have difficulty in trying to use the punchcard.,ballot. Again, depending on how long the question would be that is presented to the voter. You could cover all of the text in a separate handout and also publish that in a paper, a digest of it in the newspaper. MR. ODA: There is no way that your office can see that the practical problem of going beyond seven or eight cards can be resolved? MR. TAMASHIRO: Not at this time. We could try to assist your County Clerk ' s office to handle it but when you give a voter 10 physical cards to vote, they may get confused and forget to vote on one side. After punching about 5 they may just give up and not punch the rest. So you may have a problem. - -13- MR. ODA: So it is not a matter of running it off. It is basically your suggestion is to keep it to a limited number of no more than 7 because of 'voter confusion and frustration, or whatever. MR. TAMASHIRO: That's right. So if you are going to go upwards of 50 or more amendments you may consider paper ballots. But, again, your consideration there would be when you have many, many amendments listed on one paper °ballot then , again , the voter may have some problem in voting. But, then, the larger concern would be in the tallying of the votes. MR. ODA: It would have to be done manually? MR. TAMASHIRO: That' s right. MR. ODA: If the wording is submitted to, let ' s say, Mr. Legaspi, or, Mr. Arakaki ' s office and the proposed wording to be inserted on the actual ballot, how soon will we know whether the wording is .too overwhelming or it won ' t fit on the card, or whatever. We don' t have too much time to fool around with things like that. MR. TAMASHIRO: How soon would you come out with your proposed draft? MR. ODA: I believe the final draft is due in the Clerk' s office on August 10. MR. TAMASHIRO: Not wanting to commit his time, not knowing what support he has. .we could assist that office with the wording and come back to you in a fairly reasonable time. I really don ' t know what kind of staff support they have. MR. ODA: I see. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tamashiro, how do we address the various word changes in different sections of the charter where there is a lot of language. . . certain words that have to be corrected, and it could be very numerous. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes, well that is what I was trying to point out. If you are attempting to do your housekeeping as well as changing all the amendments and you end UO with 50 or 60, or, whatever, that voters will have to vote on, it would be very difficult, I think, for you to try to present it on a punch,;card ballot. MR. ODA: Like, let 's say, the phrase "confirm by the council. " We were talking about that outside. Your suggestion on that would be to handle it any one way? MR. TAMASHIRO: You could come up with one basic question and then cite the chapters for it because the change would be the same for all of the sections. Then in your text, just show the actual change that would take place. -14- But that is only one example. Not seeing the amendments, the types, the wording, it would be difficult for me to try to give you the right answer. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Tamashiro, not every section is going to be identical. In some you will have as counselor has suggested, but you do have some sections like in one particular section will be changed from the word magistrate to judge. That happens in maybe one or two sections but then you have a different situation right along down the line so that it is not where you can make one statement throughout and then have it voted yes or no; MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes, I just cited that as an example. Rather than having ten questions or whatever number of departments you have, that one question would handle the multiple. . . MR. SCHUTTE: If it were the exact situation. MR. TAMASHIRO: Right. MR. SCHUTTE: How do we do the housekeeping and still be able to handle the makeup of the ballot to where it doesn 't become too confusing and still be able to handle the housekeeping? MR. TAMASHIRO: . . .maybe the Clerk ' s office can look at the draft and come back to you and give you an idea of whether they can handle it. Not knowing, again, it is very hard to try to anticipate what you may have in mind. MR. ODA: Before I forget, George, according to this, copies of the ballot have to be printed in Ilocano and Chinese? MR. TAMASHIRO: As far as our method in the past has been to have an English ballot and have facsimiles in the other languages. This is the Voting Rights Act, the federal act. MR. ODA: On the wall of the voting booth- only or actual ballots? MR. TAMASHIRO: We have actual 82 x 11 facsimiles of the ballot and you just print a limited amount of that as required. As I recall, in Hawaii County you have had little need for it in past elections. MR. ODA: Ilocano and Chinese are the only other languages we have to print it in? MR. TAMASHIRO: Ilocano and Japanese is what you are covered in this county. MR. ODA: Ilocano and Japanese. -15- MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes. I would strongly recommend that you do have an English ballot, but make available some facsimiles on a 82 x 11. That is part of the state system, by the way and we could assist in that area. As a matter of fact, the County Clerk 's office called us, the Lieutenant Governor' s office ,to assist in that area of the elections. MR. ODA: So the size of the printing and all that, that is determined by whom? MR. TAMASHIRO: It is pretty much dependent on what we want, or, what you want, yourself, and in talking to the vendor. The samples that I distributed should give you an idea of the size. These are samples of actual ballots that we use throughout the state. I think you have a sample of a ' 70 Kauai Charter. Every election, I think, we have a few county charter amendment ballots. . MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Tamashiro, we are going to have a problem. . .there are some sections you just can ' t limit to the housekeeping. . .there is the intent. . .I don 't see how it is possible, at the moment. MR. TAMASHIRO: Just out of curiosity, how many amendments do you have? MR. SCHUTTE: I don;'t have the actual count, just yet, but to give you an idea, I know you can see from there that it is very lengthy. I '-just don ' t know how we can • •.• MR. TAMASHIRO: Well , maybe we can have your attorney look at it and come up with some short, concise. statements to put to the voters. I know that is a problem but, again, you know, if you are going to have too many, you are going to confuse the voter and they won ' t even grasp. . .and not vote, they will just refuse. That was one of the problems with the ConCon-." One other strong suggestion I have is that you do have a positive ballot that lets the voter choose yes and no, for and against, not the way they did it in the ConCon. MR. ODA: Did you folks have anything to do with the wording of the ConCon ballot? MR. TAMASHIRO: No. MR. ODA: You know, George, your office must have had some experience in handling these housekeeping amend- ments, let ' s say, for the City and County -of Honolulu, or maybe for some other county, I don 't know. I know there is no sample here. . . MR. TAMASHIRO: For myself, I am not aware of that but I can look back. I can go back to the office and dig around and call up the county and find out how they handled it. It was probably handled prior to the use of the punch card system. Probably on a paper ballot. If I find some around, I will forward it to you. -16- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Tamashiro, if we can just get across the intent of a particular section, would that be satisfactory? MR. TAMASHIRO: I would think so, yes. Then have good supporting text in either brochure form or a supplement newspaper form and have it available to the voters early and also have it at the polls. I would :think that is reasonable. MR. SCHUTTE: When it comes to the setting up of ballots, say, for instance, with these different word corrections, the housekeeping ones. . .if they were written out and made available so that every voter could go over and see the different housekeeping items. . .would it be possible then to go into the ballot with no housekeeping question. . . MR. TAMASHIRO: Right. You could probably cite it in one or two questions. Rather than taking each amendment section and presenting it as a question to the voter. As I said, if you sit and have your attorney play with this and look at the wording, he may be able to and you can, I think, from the samples of prior charter amendments from the other counties. . .looking at the question and the text, you can see what they have accomplished. MR. ODA: Can we put on the end, if you have any questions with regard to the above, call Geoge Tamashiro of the Lieutenant Governor' s office. MR. TAMASHIRO: Well , it is past 4: 30 so I would now be unofficially. . . MR. ODA: I am just kidding. MR. TAMASHIRO: You can see by the city. . .I have a sample of that ballot. There is a brochure there. . . eight charter questions. You can see that ballot stuff was one ballot, yet the brochure has a lot of things. MR. ODA: That was all on one ballot. MR. TAMASHIRO: Maybe I am wrong, maybe it was two. I thoughtit was one. Eight questions on that one ballot. That is where the trick comes, to be able to. MR. ODA: I think we should have had you come and talk to us in the beginning. MR. TAMASHIRO: Well, I suggested that. When I get back I will try to find more supporting type publications and see if I can forward it to you. MR. ODA: George, so far as wording of the various items to go into the ballot, that is the responsibility of this commission? -17- MR. TAMASHIRO: I would think so. MR. ODA: With the assistance of the Clerk ' s office, I suppose. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes. MR. ODA: But how it is placed on the ballot is something that you folks will decide. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes, this is what they have asked us for assistance in and we will be more than happy to assist in that. Also in maybe the way you might want to present the question to the voter Mr. Arakaki has one the Maui County used in the prior election. It was a very, very good publication. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I took charge of the polls on the last one, on all of this, when it did come time to vote on the ConCon resolutions, they hardly looked at it, they., just picked up the card and some of them didn ' t even vote on it. And, you know, the facsimiles and things like that, we had a whole stack of them and very few were used. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes, we know that but we are covered by the Voting Rights Act and although we supply them with this kind of statistics there is no way we are going to be able to bailout. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I -think in this charter revision election, too, the thing is people are not responsible. They are not going to look at this from the standpoint that it is going to be a revision and it is going to be a major change. They are not going to come to the polls with this type of an attitude. I think we might have a very poor turnout. We might have a turnout where people are not going to be responsible to this change. I think, like you say, they should be educated. . . MR. TAMASHIRO: I feel that you, you know, I think that is part of your responsibility. It is not only to make the change but to have people excited enough that they come and make an effort to vote. I think that has to do with the way you design it, the way you disseminate information. When the voter knows what he is voting on, what the issues are, I think he will come out. Again, these are the mechanics of what you have to do to get an election going. I would suggest keeping your amendments to the major ones and maybe you can forego some of the housekeeping. If the language is not vague but it is bad grammar or the wrong word used, I don ' t see that that would change that much in the charter. I think you could let it go. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that lust being presented with a lot of sample ballots, etc. , you may not have been thinking of ballot design and the way you might present amendments. I would be happy, if you would write me, if you -18- have any questions in the future pertaining to the area of ballots or the election process. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Tamashiro, just looking at this Maui proposed charter amendment as they have it on the ballot, they don ' t even quote the section, or anything. It is just the text It is very short. . . MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes, that ' s right. The premise is that the voter knows what he is voting for. I think if you present it in such a way. MR. SCHUTTE: This is very good because it is in bold type. The amendments are in bold type. MR. TAMASHIRO: That ' s right, and that election went very well. MR. ODA: Can you check for us on the 1976 charter amendments to the Maui election on the sample ballots on that? MR. TAMASHIRO: Okay. MR. SCHUTTE: We are interested also on how they addressed the housekeeping portions of it. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes. I will look into that. MR. ODA: Yes, because they have, just in a couple of sections, just two or three words added on. They must have worked it out somehow. MR. TAMASHIRO: Yes. Let me collect all the pertinent data and forward it to your commission. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you have anymore questions on the ballot for Mr. Tamashiro? Thank you, Mr. Tamashiro. MR. TAMASHIRO: Thank you. RECESS: At 4:45 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 5 :05 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. APPROVAL The Chair called for approval of minutes dated OF MINUTES: June 26, 1979. Mr. Schutte made the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Trulson and unani- mously carried. -19- COMMUNI- The following correction was noted for CATIONS: Communication #72. Comm. 72: Letter was from Charles P. Davies not William W. Moss. . .from West Hawaii Committee Chairman, dated July 2, 1979 requesting reconsider- ation of tentative decision for 7 member council. Motion to receive and file made by Mr. Schutte. Seconded by Mrs. Iwamoto and unanimously carried. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: This is for the record, also I have just received a communication from the Kona League of Republican Women addressed to the Chairman and to the Charter Commission. It will be put on the agenda for next week as Communication #78. We will now go into the Business of the Day which will be to continue drafting revisions to the charter. SECTION 13-4 MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion for reconsideration of Section 13-4, Boards and Commissions. MR. SCHUTTE: Would Mr. Trulson so state his amendment for his motion to reconsider? MR. TRULSON: I would like to make the motion that we leave the Boards and Commission in : terms of Office as is. MR. SCHUTTE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we leave Boards and Commissions as is in the charter. Any discussion on this? MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have to move to reconsider the motion to reconsider first. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everybody know the intent of the motion? To reconsider Section 13-4, Boards and Commissions. Ayes - Ishida, Iwamoto, Noes - Kobayashi Schutte, Sensano, - 1 Omonaka, Yagong, Absent - Cadinha Trulson, Yanaga, - 1 Sakata - 9 Carried. -20- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that we leave the Boards and Commissions at the present 5 year terms as it is stated in the present charter. MR. SCHUTTE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we leave the Boards and Commissions as is stated in the present charter. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trulson, what is your rationale? MR. TRULSON: I feel that if we go on 3 year terms, three year staggered. . .no, they can be consecutive terms, the commissioners are not going to be knowledgeable enough, I believe, in three years to effectively operate with the Police Department. It is quite possible that if there is a long period of time, as it has happened in the past, where the mayor does not appoint somebody in, say, a year. . .a ctually, he would be appointing somebody for only two years. There would be no continuity in the commission, itself. There are certain programs that start--four and five year programs--and with an all new commission, these programs would be somewhat lost. Also it would give the mayor, I feel , every two years he possibly could have a quorum. . . MR'S. KOBAYASHI : So, Mr. Trulson, your feeling is that it would take three years for a lay person to learn the operations of a commission? MR. TRULSON: Maybe not three but, at least, two. Perhaps you could ask Mr. Yanaga. Mr. Yanaga, I am directing her question to you. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Trulson said one of the rationale for his motion to leave the term of office for five years, is that it takes at least two years for a commissioner to learn what the operations are. MR. YANAGA: That is one of the reasons but I think the main thing is like we talked about politics. We don ' t want politics to be involved in these commissions . Especially, when you make it three years and you have a new mayor and he will select all these commissioners. Naturally, those commissioners will be obligated to the mayor. The mayor being four years and the commissioners being three years , he' s got the chance to pick all these commissions. He can tell the commissions what to do. Especially in the Police Department. We play with human beings, now, I don ' t think we should be playing politics. As far as I am concerned, that is one of the main reasons. That is the reason why I voted no, the last time. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman , I would like to restate what I have stated before. If my memory serves me correctly, I don't believe that there was anyone that requested -21- other than from this body that the term be changed at all. So, it is my feeling, as far as this revision is concerned, unless there has "really been any basis upon which a request has been made to consider a change, I assume the provision has worked up to now so it should stand. This is my only basis of why I feel no change was necessary and I still feel the same way. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. The only thing I remember about Boards and Commissions is that it was not the term of office but I think there was some comment on the fact that there are so many Boards and Commissions. I just wonder, at this point, how many Boards and Commissions we have. There are some that are mentioned here, specifically, in the charter but I am quite sure there are other Commissions and Boards that we don ' t know about. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I speak in favor of the motion and I would _like to add a little bit more to that. I believe this is in relation to what Mr. Sensano is speaking about. I believe that the Boards and Commissions are appointed by the mayor through the council to enable the general public to have more participation in the workings of government and as we have here the input from the lay person along with Mr. Yanaga' s consideration of continuity of having the_ five year period instead of the three year period. I think all the Boards and Commissions do give the general public a greater input in government. I think if we were to delete some of these I think we would dilute the public input to our present county government. I speak in favor of the motion. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I would like to restate some of the reasons I gave last week in favor of the three year term. I guess I would have to say, Kalani , I think the people would be given more input because with a three year term you could get almost twice as many to serve on $dards and ;Commissions. The other reason, I think, that we gave last week was that, in theory, the 3 year term which would _al1owthe mayor. to make the appointments would strengthen the strong mayor concept which the charter is based upon. You are giving the mayor the opportunity to appoint commissioners who will set policy. So however the commission will decide. TOO bad Harlan is not here because he is the one who made the motion. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Maybe in reply to Mrs. Kobayashi regarding the mayor being able to appoint all the commissioners in his term, so far every mayor we have had has been at least two terms and, now, I can ' t speak for the future, but if -he went into two terms he would, in effect, appoint all the commissioners. MRS. IWAMOTO: Mr. Chairman. I also feel that we should have this change of terms and I agree with the rest of the commissioners about the term of the commission members. One of the things that I felt, after talking to the commissioners was that it takes time to learn the program of the department and if a person serves for three years and his term is up, what might -22® happen is that if a new member comes into the picture and tries to continue a program, it is a waste of time because there will be a lot of re-learning occurring. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Trulson, do you feel that the commissions, as far as the numbers are concerned, nine, seven--in the charter right now--do you feel that they should be uniform with all nine? Or, do you feel they should be left as is, status quo? MR. TRULSON: I believe it should be as is in the charter. MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. You know on this commission, too, if the term is too long, I think the mayor has the right to discharge the commissioner with the approval of the council. So, if he is not satisfied, he can go that route. I don ' t think five years is too long a term. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion as Mr. Trulson has stated? To leave it status quo, the way it is right now in the present charter? MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. We have made some changes to the various provisions in that section. Is that included in it? MR. TRULSON: No, I am referring to the length of terms. MR. ODA: I think that should be very, very explicit. MR. TRULSON: I am referring to your proposal, Mr. Oda, Section (a) . . .should read. . .staggered five year terms. Section (c) . . .should not be consecutive terms. In other words, starting from Section 13-4 Boards and Commissions. . .Except as otherwise provided in this charter, all boards and commissions specifically established by this charter shall be governed by the following provisions: ( a) The members shall serve staggered terms of five years beg-inning with any new appointee. . . MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Bud, as far as the intent of your motion is such that all action that we took on Section 13-4 is nullified, right? Just don' t do anything to it, leave it as is. That is the only thing. . . MR. TRULSON: Was that the entire section or was it just part ( a)? MR. ISHIDA: I believe it was just 13-4. MR. OMONAKA: You motion was to reconsider Section 13-4. -23- MR. ODA: If you will look at the proposed amendment to the last section (k) which was added. It was at your request, now, I don ' t know what you are going to do with it. MR. TRULSON: Maybe I misstated my motion. I do want it in. I want everything in except part (a) where it says three years and (c) where it says consecutive terms. You can refer back to part (c) of the original then. My concern is with the terms of the commission. Perhaps What I should do is restate my motion and make it clearer. I can restate my motion by reading from this proposal. My motion will be as follows as regarding Section 13-4. Boards and Commissions. . .Except as otherwise provided in this charter, all boards and commissions specifically established by this charter shall be governed by the following provisions: (a) The members shall serve staggered terms of five years beginning with any new appointee to any board or commission after January 1, 1980. (b) The members shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed upon the recommendation of the mayor, with the approval of the council. (c) No member shall be' eligible for a second appointment to the same board or commission prior to the expiration of two years, provided that members of any board or commission initially appointed for a term of one year and two years shall be eligible to succeed themselves for an additional term. (d) No member whose term has expired shall continue to serve on such board or commission. (c) Any vacancy occurring in any board or commission shall be filled for the unexpired term. (f) Not more than a bare majority of the members shall belong to the same political party. (g) through ( j ) the same as it is in the present charter, without my reading it all . An addition would be (k) Notwithstanding any other provision in this charter, no person shall, by reason of his occupation alone, be barred from serving as a member of any board or commission. MR. SCHUTTE:. I second the motion. Bud, everything is the same then except for the addition of (k) , right? MR. TRULSON: Except what I read over, yes. The same as what? MR. SCHUTTE: The present charter. MR. OMONAKA: The motion should be no change except the addition of subparagraph (k) . .nobody shall be barred from serving on boards or commissions because of his occupation. -24- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Then you want to delete section (f)? MR. TRULSON: I read the deletions. MR. OMONAKA: You want everything except the addition of subparagraph (k ) ? MR. ODA: The only substantive changes are subsection (a) and (c) and the newest subsection (k ) . The rest are just language refinements, that is all. (a) and (c) would be changed by the substantive nature of that motion. The original (a) and (c) would apply. MR. TRULSON: The original. . MR. ODA: Subsection (a) and (c) with subsection (k ) being added. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Section. 13-4. Boards and Commissions, the change will be to go back to the five years for terms and then the language on (b) where it says approval of the council . . .will be confirmed by the council. Then we go to subsection ( f) except as otherwise provided in this charter, we will delete that and it will start. . .-Not more than a bare majority of the members shall belong to the same political party. The rest of it stays as is and we add subsection (k) . Is, that clear now? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - Kobayashi Yagong, Omonaka, - 1 Sensano, Iwamoto, Schutte, Ishida, Absent - Cadinha Sakata - 9 - 1 Carried. MR. ODA: The handouts comprised of one, two, three, four pages are those provisions which I was instructed to work out at the last session. Starting with Section 3-13, I don ' t know whether it is in the same order in your handout. Emergency Ordinances. It should be on the top sheet. It doesn ' t say draft or anything, it just says July 9, 1979. Do you all have that? There is also a loose sheet on the Sunset Law which was drafted and another one of the Charter Amendment or Revision. SUNSET LAW: Can we turn to the one regarding the Sunset Law? This was an original draft, we did not copy anybody else' s. The Sunset Law that the state passed in 1977 Legislature--you have a copy of it called the Hawaii Regulatory Licensing Reform Act, which doesn ' t amount to anything we can really use for the purpose of language utilization. The concern -25- I" have in the draft that we have, right now, is that we really didn ' t have time to refine it to the extent that perhaps may be necessary but just to give you an idea it is the extent to which the review of programs are to go. In other words, what shall we include as a program? Is the intent to be. . .I understand at the last commission meeting there was some concern whether the Executive Agencies should be considered part of it or only other kinds of miscellaneous programs that exist. Like, let ' s say, the Committee on the Status of Women, or whatever. I don 't mean to pick on that agency, it just comes to mind. An agency to preserve the monkey pod tree, or, you know, whatever, MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, it was my understanding at the last meeting there wereprograms that were not included in the Executive Departments or Agencies. MR. ODA: Yes, but the definition of agency in the charter means any office, department, commission or other governmental unit, so what I am concerned about is, I wonder whether we are prohibiting any review of everything by the definition of program. You see my concern? It is such a broad, the word agency is such a broadly defined term in the charter and even the committee, as I said, to protect the monkey pod tree, if something like that existed, could possibly be an "agency. " To limit it to a specific type of agency is very difficult from the standpoint of drafting unless I know the -intent of the. . . MR. ISHIDA: Can the term "program" be defined in the positive instead of the negative? MR. ODA: It can but I have got to know what type of programs are intended to be dragged into the net, so to speak. What programs do you have in mind? MR. SENSANO: I thought it --was all programs. Because these are all county programs. MR. ODA: A lot of these programs are attached to agencies like, let 's say, the Department of Research and Development, Committee on Aging, for example, is an adjunct, I think, of either Parks and Recreation or Research and Development. . .I think, Parks and Recreation. Do you mean onlythat kind of operation and leave out the Department of P --Parks and Recreation? MR. SCHUTTE: Maybe we should change it. . . MR. ODA: Everything in the county is supported by public funds, wholly or partly. MR. TRULSON: There are many programs and it says the county council shall critically look at them. I 'm sure that if someone were to read into the intent of one of these programs the Department of Water, I 'm sure the council is going to take a very short look at it. . . -26- MR. ODA: BUt in implementing this particular charter provision if it becomes a charter provision, I think the council is going to have an awfully difficult time determining what they are supposed to do. Unless, we, from this commission, pinpointit to a large extent. Whether it is, as Mr. Sensano says, everything, or, just something. And those somethings. .what are those somethings? MR. TRULSON: There may be a program that is going to come next year and will only be good for two years. We can ' t very well state it. MR. ODA: Yes, I realize that, but, what do we mean then by program. MR. ISHIDA: There is going to have to be some kind of distinction as to programs that are authorized by the council as opposed to programs within each department. Because, generally, as you know, as any type of activity or program that is sponsored by it or it means any department for which it is responsible. If it comes up upon review of the 'annual budget meeting would be good enough. MR. ODA: Everything, right? MR. ISHIDA: Yes. I think we are more concerned on those that are specifically created or funded by council where it is not, if I can think of an example. . .I can see your problem whereby the agency comes up with the recommended - program in their budget and it is funded by council. Yes, I can see the problem. MR. ODA: I know you want to exclude the agencies, themselves, but you don' t want to exclude divisions or bureaus within that agency. I think that is what is meant. MR. TRULSON: Does any other county have a Sunset proposal? MR. ODA: Not that I know of. The reason for it, I suppose, is that by virtue of the legislative branch having control over budget appropriations, itself, is a built-in, so-called, Sunset authority. The difference, if you mandate something in the charter, of course, is that you are requiring the council to look at it kind of a second time, critically. Whether it is going to accomplish anything, I don ' t know. MR. SCHUTTE : Stuart, presently, the council has the authority to review these programs anyway. All we are doing here is specifically saying or directing them that they review these various programs and it is a matter of do we separate them or do we include everything. I would say that it is kind of hard to go down the line and pick out very specific situations and then tie them down to just those -27- specific situations. I think we may have to include everything as Mr. Sensano was saying. . .I think the main intent is that if there is an appropriation of some kind, a program, and all of a sudden that program is non-existent yet remains on the books with the same appropriation then all we are saying is we direct the council to review it and if it is non-existent then change it, delete it. MR. TRULSON : If it is challenged _and somebody is asked to--corp counsel--anybody, is asked to for their interpretation for it, are they not going to go to the minutes . of this commission to see what our intentions are. MR. ODA: Well, like anything else, I suppose that can be done but I think I have a professional obligation to make it as clear as possible and not to fall back on minutes, if at all possible. MR. TRULSON: Then you feel that you can redraft it to make it more acceptable. MR. OMONAKA: If we need one at all. I don ' t think we need one, a Sunset provision in the charter. MR. ODA: Well, that is a decision for you folks to make. MR. ISHIDA: Aren 't we actually mandating ,the council to review everything that is funded at a given time? So whether it be specific program or not, or whatever it is, whatever activity it is that is being funded, I think what we are trying to impose on them is that it is their duty to look at it and if it is fine, at least, they will continue it. If they think it is all through, if it is not beneficial , then if they can terminate it, fine. MR. SCHUTTE: Don ' t they already have that authority, Richard? MR. ISHIDA: But they are not mandated to do so, so they may just forget about it. That is the thing. I think thatiswhere the problem is abqut_ it Having the Sunset provision there, they arerequired to review everything, every type of- program that is being funded. MR. OMONAKA: Isn ' t this done right now through the adoption of the budget? They go through this budget item by item. MR. ISHIDA: To a certain extent they do that but I think that when a certain type of program is funded for maybe two, three years, I think they just forget about it. MR. OMONAKA: It does come back again in the budget, as I understand it. -28- MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t know. I don' t know if I can answer that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: When they ask for appropriations like this, does the agency come to the council and ask for appropriations or something like that? MR. ODA: As I understand it, the individual responsible for that program or activity, if the council has any questions about it, they have to answer to the finance committee or the council, as a whole, any concerns or questions that are raised regarding it. Especially in the budget review process just before April, May, June, in that period of time. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: If that program does appear before the council, doesn ' t it mean that it is stable. . . MR. ODA: . No, no, well , the budget is presented to the council for approval and at that time, the budget review process takes several weeks or months. The council requests that those people, those agencies, that they want to question their budget requests on have to come in and like, I am sitting here, I would be questioned as to why I -am requesting five positions in my program when I had only two, or whatever, you know, an increase in the budget even if I don 't have an increase in staff. They go through that every year. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, that is only if somebody should question it. MR. SENSANO: This all has something to do with the rising cost of running our county government. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, as an example, if, for instance, the mayor suggested or proposed a particular program and it was funded by the council, and for some reason or other the council, after a four year period felt that this particular program was not doing what it was intended to do. . .by having the Sunset Law, they could be mandated to do away with this particular program. Isn ' t this correct? MR. ODA: They are not mandated to do away with it, they are mandated to look at it. MR. SCHUTTE: And if so, decide to do away ' with it. . . MR. ODA: Right, and then make a decision as to what to do with it after that. The principle involved, if I can offer an opinion is in principle, it looks good. The question, I suppose, that you folks have to answer is whether, as someone has said, the thing is already being done in other ways in the budget review process. And, whether this is going to impress any councilman whether he has a greater duty because of the language, I don ' t know. But if it does pass and become part of the charter it will be a first for the counties , I think. For the four counties. -29- It is going to be hard to not include anything and just say only certain things shall be ;added. MR. SCHUTTE: May I make a suggestion. To begin with, maybe you should just change the word "include" to exclude, whereas this program does NOT exclude any executive department. . . MR. ODA: Well, just take out that entire sentence or say the council shall critically review every agency, program, activity. . .to be sure it encompases everything. And, take out that sentence regarding the exclusion. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, but then don 't we get away from--why should we have it at all if you are not going to include the main part of it? I think the main part is that you don 't exclude anything. To me, the first part just tells _ : them;. again, what their job is. They already know that but it just refreshes their memory. But, without the bottom section. . MR. ODA: Which bottom section are you talking about? MR. SCHUTTE: The bottom that says. .program does not include any executive department or agency as defined in this charter. The council shall adopt procedures and details to implement this section. Now, without giving them this bottom section , the top is just repetitious because you are just telling them what they are already doing. MR. ODA: Right. No, I am saying to eliminate that sentence of. . .program does not include any executive department or agency. MR. SCHUTTE: Eliminate that sentence? Why not leave it and just change the include to exclude, then. Just change the word. MR. ODA: If that is what you want to mean, yes. Program includes. . MR. SCHUTTE: Then it would read program does not exclude any executive department or agency. . MR. ODA: In drafting statutes there is a rule that says you try to word it in a positive fashion to avoid any confusion. There are instances where we did it the opposite way, but in this case it is a simple matter of just putting it in a positive. . .program includes executive departments or agencies, you know, if that is what you folks want. MR. ISHIDA: You were not able to find a sample of a so-called Sunset Law? -30- MR. ODA: No. As I say, I do believe that that came out of this Hawaii Regulatory Licensing Reform Act. Basically, I think, the Legislature wanted to get rid of these old, old makule commissions that existed, like the Board of Massage, Boxing Commission, Rental Agency Commission, that kind of thing. Maybe because the governor had, so many board members to select--thousands of them--this would be one way to ease the burden on him to reappoint or appoint members of commissions, by cutting down on the number of commissions. They have an awfully hard time getting people to fill the boards and commissions, every year, or every four years. MR. SHCUTTE: What that also would do, too, I was just thinking about it, like I mentioned before, if the mayor proposes a program to the council. . .and four years down the road there is a change in council personalities and for one reason or the other that particular council, four years down the road may decide that that particular program that is set up is not doing anything. AS a result, they may decide, this year, to do away with it, with the funding. . . MR. ODA: That' s ', right, so, as I say, the principle is a good one. The question comes down to 'as Mr. Trulson always says, or somebody else says, or Mr. Sensano, I think, the human element involved whether it will result in any. . .you know, like anything else. . . MR. SCHUTTE: So what you are suggesting then would be to put it in the affirmative. . .the program shall include all executive departments. . . MR. ODA: Right. MR. SCHUTTE: The program shall include. . . is that any or all? MR. ODA: The program shall include all executive departments or agencies, board or commissions, you know, that kind of thing. MR. SENSANO: I think it would be better to delete the whole sentence altogether. MR. ODA: I am afraid that we might not be including somebody, see, that is the danger in something like this. You might have an offbeat group of people out there that might go by another designation that we don' t know about. I don 't think any of us in this county, or in this room, right now, are that aware of all the groups that might exist. I know in the charter there is a group called the Advisory Committee to the Mayor, or something like that. . .I don ' t know whether that group exists but. . . MR. SCHUTTE : So you are suggesting that we just delete that one particular sentence? -31- MR. ODA: Yes, I think there is no question. So long as any program is supported by county funds in any way they are swept into the review process. MR. SENSANO: If you start mentioning any specific agencies, then they will say what others are. . . MR. ODA: That ' s right. It is like sending out wedding invitations, you always tend to forget somebody. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are we going to include that word in there the program shall. . . MR. SCHUTTE: What we are going to do, Mr. Chairman, is delete that whole sentence and leave the balance. I so move. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the Sunset Law proposal as prepared by our legal counsel , by deleting the sentence. . .Program does not include any executive department or agency as defined in this charter. Any other discussion? Does everybody know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - Omonaka Yagong, Sensano, - 1 Schutte, Iwamoto, Absent - Cadinha Kobayashi, Ishida, - 1 Sakata - 9 Carried. SECTION 3-13 : MR. ODA: Can we, Mr. Chairman, go on to .. . .. . .. ... . . . . ....... Section 3-13? SECTION 10-8: I think there was some concern about a conflict between Section 3-13 and 10-8, the last time, regarding the comments by Stanley Nakamae. So this proposed redraft of the first paragraph of Section 3-13 makes it clear that it is being looked at together with Section 10-8. . .the county council may adopt emergency ordinances, and pursuant to Section 10-8, make emergency appropriations or authorize the issuance of emergency notes to meet public emergencies affecting life, health or property. Such ordinances, however, may not be used to levy taxes or to grant, renew or extend franchises. That is, again, to put it in line with any inconsistency that may have existed with Section 10-8. The remainder of the section stays the same. Just below that, of course, is Section 10-8 to incorporate 3-13. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept these two proposals as submitted. -32.- MRS. IWAMOTO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 3-13 and 10-8 as redrafted. Any other discussion? MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I wonder if legal counsel can explain the last sentence of 3-13. . .Such ordinances, however, may not be used to levy taxes or to grant, renew or extend franchises. What do you mean by franchises? MR. ODA: I don 't know how thecounty uses the word franchises, frankly, Mr. Sensano, except my understanding of franchises are actually there are certain types of contracts that the county may be entering in with various companies regarding services and other supplies that may be purchased by the county. That is about all I can say to it. It may be used in a different context, I don ' t know. Richard, do you have any other ideas on that? How the word franchises is being used. MR. ISHIDA: I would think. . . MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Oda a question? Why did you take out, in Section 10-8, that section about two-thirds membership? It explains how the voting is supposed to be. The second sentence in the second paragraph. . .Such appropriations may be made by ordinance and must be approved by all council members. . . MR. ODA: I think it is still in there, isn ' t it? MRS. KOBAYASHI : It is not in your draft. MRODA& Oh, I see, 3-13 , Mrs. Kobayashi , already says how it shall be adopted. The affirmative vote of all council members shall be necessary for adoption of such ordinances. That is why we say in the manner prescribed in 3-13. in other words, it would have been redundant to repeat that. In 3-13 it says how emergency ordinances are to be adopted. In other words , to make it consistent, 10-8 says two-thirds of the entire membership; 3-13 says the affirmative vote of all council membersp resent shall be necessary for adoption of such ordinances. The reason is, in an emergency you may not have all council members present. I mean, two- thirds of the entire membership may be present. Some may be out of town on business, .trips9 as they frequently are. So if you have only five members present, three of them can. . MR. ISHIDA: Doesn ' t it say unanimous? MR. ODA: Wait a minute. All council members present, yes. If you have only two, then two of them would be sufficient. So I think the provision in 3-13 reflects the reality of the situation much better than the provision in 10-8 with regard to voting. That also will make it consistent with each other. -33- MR. ISHIDA: Wouldn 't this be consistent as is? Because it says in 10-8. . .and must be approved by ALL council members present OR by two-thirds of the entire membership. MR. ODA: Well , it is inconsistent to the extent that there is no two-thirds of the entire membership in 3-13, right? MR. ISHIDA: It could be either/or. If you have, say, well, we have nine, now, if you have seven members and six in the affirmative vote. . . MR. ODA: Well , I don ' t know, I am guessing but I think the intent of it was because it may be an emergency where you have less than a majority present, you know what I mean? MR. ISHIDA: Yes, I can see that. . .but if there are nine full membership and all you need is two-thirds. . . to require all nine. . . MR. ODA: But that is not what the provision says, you know. That is not what it says. You have either way, so which way is valid? MR. ISHIDA: But if you don ' t have two-thirds, ALL must be present. All present for a vote. MR. ODA: For a vote, right. MR. ISHIDA: So if you have seven present, then all you would need is six affirmative votes. . . MR. ODA: You can read it that way. Two-thirds. MR. ISHIDA: Two-thirds is to not make it impossible at the polls. It also then covers the situation in a dire emergency where you have only five individuals present, then you would require all five, you can ' t have two- thirds then. . . MR. ODA: Whatever the commission wants, so long as they are consistent. MR. ISHIDA: What is the motion now? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: To accept 3-13 and .10-8. MR. ISHIDA: I would like to propose to make it consistent that we add the by two-thirds of the entire membership to Section 3-13. I feel if we do that we wouldn ' t be changing what it is now, plus, by deleting it, I think we are making it too restrictive. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I will amend my motion to incorporate Mr. Ishida' s request. -34- MR. ISHIDA: Stuart, if we do that we just need to amend Section 3-13 by adding the two-thirds, right? Then the way you have got 10-8 drafted would be the same number of votes required. MR. ODA: I don ' t know, I have to think about that. I will probably have to redraft the whole thing. I don ' t know. I will have to wait until next week, I can 't do it now. RECESS: At 6: 30 p.m. the Chair called for a dinner recess. RECONVENE: At 7:45 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. SECTION 3-13: MR. ODA: I think I have, Mr. Chairman, a suggested rewording of Section 3-13 and 10-8. SECTION 10-8: If you will look at the charter, itself, I think it will be clearer, since we took out some other things from the xerox provisions that you have. Page 5 of the charter, first. Are you all following me? As I understand the past concern, 3-13 did not authorize the borrowing of money as it presently reads for emergencies. Okay? To correct that, all we have to do is add the following language, to the end of the first paragraph, saying Emergency appropriations may bemade_ pursuant to Section 10-8. MR. SCHUTTE: Was that just those words? MR. ODA: Yes, Emergency appropriations. . . after the word, franchises, in the first paragraph. The last word in the first paragraph. Emergency appropriations may be made pursuant to Section 10-8. In the second paragraph, just about the middle of the paragraph, where Mr. Ishida was concerned about the missing portion of that after the words. . .the line begins on the fifth line with the word, affirmative. . .affirmative vote of all council members present or by two-thirds of the entire membership. . .that would make it consistent with 10-8 so far as the intent is concerned. MR. SCHUTTE: Or by two-thirds. . MR. ODA: Or by two-thirds of the entire membership. Are there any questions on that? Then on Section 10-8 in the charter on page 24, everything will read the same as it presently_is- worded but :1 -would- suggest that in the second paragraph, the second line beginning with. . .upon written request by the mayor, be deleted and leave everything else in there. . .To meet a public emergency affecting life, health or property, the council, - /upon written request by the mayor7 that be deleted. The reason for that is -35- I if themayor is unavailable for one reason or another, off the island, or whatever, they cannot make emergency appropriations. MR. OMONAKA: Doesn ' t this defeat the purpose of who declares an emergency? MR. ODA: The declaration of emergency can be made but we are talking about the appropriations, only, in this section. The mayor would have to declare the emergency. I think there is a provision that says in his absence, some- thing, you know, there is a provision for that. MR. TRULSON: How would the first sentence of the second paragraph read? MR. ODA: To meet a public emergency affecting life, health or property, the council may rake emergency appropriations. So the phrase, upon written request by the mayor, is suggested to be deleted. Everything else in Section 10-8 can still remain. It would be, then, consistent I think with Section 3-13. It would satisfy Mr. Nakamae' s concerns. So please ignore the draft which you have on the xeroxed sheet for this purpose. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to amend my original motion to incorporate what counsel has just stated to us. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 3-13 and Section 10-8 as drafted by the counsel with proper language. Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Ishida, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Absent - Cadinha Sensano, Omonaka, - 1 Trulson, Yagong, Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION XVI : MR. ODA: If we can proceed now, Mr. Chairman, to the Transitional Provisions. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, this is all new language that you are putting in there? MR. ODA: We are rewording most of it. Deleting part of it. Much of it is already unnecessary. We checked on its necessity and found that, for example, well , we just made it to conform to the amendments in this charter. Let me go down this, I think it is easier. -36- On Section 16-1. Schedule. After its ratification by the electorate, this amended charter shall take full effect on January 1 , 1980. MR. ISHIDA: Stuart, on that provision, to me it would infer that we are adopting the amended charter as a body. We are going to have a problem as to how we are going to present it in the ballot. Would this be proper in the way it is worded? If it is all , or nothing, I can see it. MR. ODA: Well , I don' t intend it to mean all , or nothing. I mean, as it may be amended. Whether it is one provision or all provisions. Basically, the intent of the original Section 16-1 is substantially supressed. . .not supressed but it, is compressed, you might say, into, if you look into the original language. . .upon its that is a misspelling. . . ratification. What suggestions do you have? MR. ISHIDA: I was looking at it. How about something like this Upon its ratification by the electorate, this charter as amended. . MR. ODA: Fine. This charter as amended as revised? MR. ISHIDA: Not revised. . . . MR. ODA: It doesn 't really matter. Which one would you prefer. MR. SENSANO: I think we had better use the charter language "amended. " MR. ODA: After its ratification by the electorate, this charter as amended shall take full effect on January 1, 1980. Is that satisfactory? When I say January 1 I mean 12:01 a.m. or one minute past midnight, December 31. Section 16-2. Initial E7,ection Under this Amended Charter. The first county primary and general elections under this amended charter shall be held in the year 1980. That is basically the same as the original Section 16-2. Any questions on that? MR. SCHUTTE: You are adding the word "amended"-- Initial Election Under this Amended Charter? MR. ODA: Right. Any problems with that? Section 16-3. That basically exists in all county charters. I don ' t think there is any need to change that. That is to continue in effect all present laws and ordinances that are not inconsistent with the charter. MRS. KOBAYASHI : What is the Hawaii Redevelop- ment Agency? They mentioned it in the present charter and you continue to mention it. -37 - MR. ODA: It is a dormant agency, right now. Upon checking on it, we found out that it may be reincarnated because of the recent purchase by the group of people of the large Richardson estate property. There is some talk now of reviving the redevelopment agency for that purpose. It is still on the books and it may be, as I said, revived. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Was that a commission? MR. ODA: The Hawaii Redevelopment Agency? I think it was a regular--I don ' t know who it was attached to, but maybe it was attached to Public Works. I am not absolutely sure on that. We did check on that. Subsection ( a) . In 16-4 ( a) we deleted that last portion of that last sentence regarding. ./beyond twelve months after the full effective date of this charter®_% And, instead added the language. . .in accordance with this amended charter. Because the board members in the commissions wou d have to be appointed according to the amended charter. Subsection 16-4 (b) and (c) were considered no longer necessary since they are no longer applicable regarding the office of the county auditor, puchasing agent, elected county clerk and the county attorney. In place of the deleted subsection (b) was inserted the provision--if you will follow the xerox--abolishing the public works board of appeals because of the consolidation with the planning board of appeals in Section 5-6.3 and mandating that the mayor appoint two members of the present board of appeals to be added on to make it seven , a seven member board. I think that provision regarding the appointment for three years would have to be changed. The mayor shall appoint two members to the present planning board of appeals. . .I think we should stop it there. Delete the last two sections in that on the xerox /one member for a term of two years and one member for a term of three years. Members shall thereafter be appointed for a term of three years.? Those provisions should be deleted. I would suggest that the language The mayor shall appoint. . . perhaps the word additional members to the present planning board of appeals. Section 5-6.3 was an added on section to the miscellaneous, Chapter 6. 5-6.3. Board of Appeals. MR. ISHIDA: Section 5-7.3. MR. ODA: It has been redesignated as Chapter 7, so it would be Section 5-7.3. MR. ISHIDA: Stuart, since this board of appeals is a new body. . . MR. SCHUTTE: . . .this is not the regular board of appeals, right? MR. ODA: The point that Richard is making is -38- the present board of appeals shall continue and the mayor shall appoint two additional members to make it seven, remember? So, maybe we can add a sentence there that says the present planning board of appeals as amended. . . MR. ISHIDA: We will have the staggered problem. Shall we just make a new appointment? MR. ODA: . . .In the new Chapter 7, in your stapled handout, it is about the middle of the compiled xeroxed. . .under miscellaneous. Richard, wouldn ' t the staggered be taken care of under Section 13-4? MR. ISHIDA: I think you have a problem there. Unless you just create a new board there is no carryover. . . the problem is the carryover. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, as it stands right now, Section 5-7.3 , is that not sufficient language? _ MR. ODA: Richard is concerned about the staggered terms. MR. SCHUTTE: Of the board? MR. OMONAKA: Stuart, are we going to work on the premise that the present members of the board of appeals is part of this new board of appeals, or do we start from scratch? MR. ODA: I don ' t think we even considered that. MR. OMONAKA: Maybe we should start from scratch then 13-4 should cover that. MR. ISHIDA: Yes. MR. ODA: All right, so you have. . .The public works board of appeals shall stand abolished and their functions transferred to the extent provided in Section 5-7.3, period. What about the existing? MR. OMONAKA: Maybe you should abolish the two, the planning board and the public works. MR. ISHIDA: Yes. MR. ODA: The public works board of appeals AND the planning board. How about the second sentence. . .the mayor shall appoint. . . MR. ISHIDA: I don' t think we need that now. MR. OMONAKA: We don ' t need that. -39- MR. ODA: We will capitalize Public Works Board of Appeals and add. . .and the Planning Board of Appeals with appropriate capital letters for the first letters of each word. The Public Works Board of Appeals and the Planning Board of Appeals shall stand abolished and their functions transferred to the extent provide• in Section .3, period. Subsections (d) (e) (f) and (g) are satisfactory. Page 40 of the charter. Subsection (h) is really not necessary. . .regarding administrative organization. Similarly, Section 16-5 is unnecessary. Section 16-6 and 16-7 are necessary. Section 16-8 is changed to the extent that. . . shall continue in office until he is removed pursuant to the provisions of this charter. Successors, the provision for successors has been deleted. Sections 9 through 11 are OK. Sections 12 and 13 are no longer necessary. MR. ISHIDA: Has the new County Seal been adopted? MR. ODA: It° s right there. Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions, I would ask the commission members to make the appropriate motion for the Transitional Provisions. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move we accept the amended provisions as stated by counsel. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt the Transitional Provisions as submitted by counsel. Do you have any addition discussion. MR. SENSANO: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Sensano, Schutte, Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Yagong, Trulson, Absent - Cadinha Yanaga, Omonaka, - 1 Kobayashi, Sakata - 10 Carried. -40- MR. ODA: May I refer the commission, Mr. Chairman, to the additional notes? Under Article XII, if I can refer you to page 29 of the charter regarding special assessments. That Article is no longer necessary since the county council has enacted the appropriate county ordinance. We did check on it. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I move for this deletion. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we delete this upon recommendation from legal counsel. Any discussion on this? MR. SCHUTTE: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Iwamoto, Kobayashi , Noes - None SECTION 12-1 : Ishida, Sensano, Trulson, Yanaga, Absent - Cadinha Omonaka, Yagong, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oda, this will necessitate the changing the numbers of all the following sections, right? MR. ODA: We have already done that pursuant to the authority given us earlier. SECTION 13-18 : MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, additional notes #2, Section - Claims. I think that is wrong. MR. ODA: That is a - typographical error. MR. ISHIDA: That should be 13-18. MR. TRULSON: 13-18? MR. ODA: My son, who typed this, couldn ' t type too well. Page 33, the last line. . .the claim should be filed with the county clerk within two years. . .I would =ask the commission, Mr. Chairman, to change/six months7 to two years pursuant to the case of ._Salavea . vs City and County of Honolulu which found the city and county provision to be unconstitutional. -41- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I move we adopt Section 13-18 with the appropriate change as recommended by our legal counsel. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 13-18 with the appropriate change made by legal counsel. Any other discussion on this? MR. SENSANO: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yagong, Omonaka, Noes - None Schutte, Iwamoto, Kobayashi, Ishida, Absent - Cadinha Yanaga, Trulson, - 1 Sensano, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 14-2: MR. ODA: Under additional notes, item #3. If you will refer to page 36 of the charter, SUBSECTION subsection (c) stating that. . .it shall TE7 constitute a conflict of interest for any employee or officer of the county to disclose confidential information gained by reason of his official position or use such information for the personal gain or benefit of himself or anyone else. As was stated previously, that provision was declared unconstitutional by Judge Nelson Doi , while he was sitting as a judge. On the basis of Roxanna Garcia' s testimony, we recommend, Mr. Chairman, that that subsection be deleted from the County Charter. MR. SCHUTTE: I so move,. MRS. IWAMOTO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that under Article XIV, Section 14-2, subsection (c) be deleted as recommended by legal counsel. Any other discussion on this? M1S,o IWAMOTO: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the;:.motion? Ayes - Kobayashi, Ishida, Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Cadinha Yagong, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. -42- ARTICLE XV: MR. ODA: If you will turn, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission , to the new Article XV with regard to Charter Amendments or Revision. Basically, all we did was make the necessary housekeeping changes to conform to the amendments and the changes previously made to other sections with regard to geographical areas we added on which are not presently in the charter. We do not have a provision with regard to educating the public because, as I recall from the last meeting, this commission was really not in agreement as to how that should be done. The present charter, as it reads, also does not specify when a special ,election is to be held. We did specify that as in November of the charter review year. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Where does section (b) start? MR. ODA: The second paragraph. MRS. KOBAYASHI : You keep the first paragraph? MR. ODA: Yes. Somebody wanted the social security number so we changed that. MRS. IWAMOTO: I think 1- did. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Why was it changed to 20 days? MR. ODA: That, I think, in conformity to another section. Initiative, right, you know, under the rules of procedure. . . MRS. KOBAYASHI : Yes, 20 days, okay. MR. ODA: Initiative and Referendum, that kind of thing. Consistency, again. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oda, by stating that an election must be held in November of the review year, are we putting kind of a restraint or hardship on, perhaps, succeeding commissions? What I am thinking about is, say, they should want to change the whole charter. It would be pretty difficult to do, perhaps. MR. ODA: Well, to the extent that any time you set up any kind of schedule by mandate, you are boxing the commission in, so to speak, to a definite timetable. MR. TRULSON: What I think of is the time that we have spent amending. If the new commission were to begin on page 1 and they revise the entire charter, could they do it in the time allotted? I don ' t know, I am just asking. -4.3- MR. ODA: I think they can , but they may have to meet more often than once a week. I think we lost some time, too, about a month. If we don' t do it within the year it would have to be in the election year. If it is not in ' 89 or ' 99, the year '89 or ' 99, it would have be ' 90 or the year 2000. That is an election year. If you make charter revisions too close to the election, you might create some problems. I don ' t know, there is a benefit of having to mandate that they do it by November of that year to the extent that you are forcing them to come to a decision, right away. And, yet, considering your concern about whether you are boxing them in or not, you are forcing them to make hasty decisions in view of a large number of amendments they might have to consider. And, also, preventing them from putting the charter amendments onto the general election ballots in the succeeding even numbered year, right? Because this would automatically force them to have the election in the odd numbered year, which is either '89 or ' 99. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, it also has been mentioned because we are supposed to have this charter up for a vote this November, that we may not get a good voter turnout compared to having it in a regular election year. If this be the case, and we have this particular portion tying them down to November of that particular year, they may find that they would get a better turnout if they hold it over to the voting year. I don ' t know, this is just something I have considered. My idea, I think, when we adopted this theory was that by having it in a non-election year is that the people would be able to concentrate on it. Then, again, another view of this is that we probably won ' t get the kind of voter turnout during this ';off year as we would at our regular election. These are two things to consider. MR. TRULSON: I would think it would be better to leave it up to the commission to dictate as to when they are going to have their election, as it is in the present charter. MR. ODA: May I just have a moment on that? Another thought came to my mind. If you will look at Section 15-2. The amendments to be proposed by the county council by ordinance are to be submitted to the electors. . .if you will follow about the middle of that paragraph. . .for approval at the next general election. So, I don' t know, maybe if this commission wants to make it in that fashion, that way you have plenty of time to review it. MR. TRULSON: Section 15-2, that is for amendments of the council, that could be for any election here between the charter review years. -44- MR. ODA: Every two years, at least, yes. MR. TRULSON: I don ' t think it pertains to 15-2 that much, does',it? MR. ODA: The reason I say that is since the amendments initiated through the council are by general elections, if you want to keep it on a special election for charter review purposes by the Charter Review Commission in November of the year, the problem that might result is that if the amendments are reJected in November, for one reason or another, you cannot have it on the next year' s ballot, in the 1980 ballot, general election ballot. MR. SCHUTTE: What happens if any of these portions are rejected? MR. SENSANO: Then we stay with the provisions as they are now. MR. ODA: Only those portions that are approved would be in effect along with the original provisions that remain .would continue to go. MR. SCHUTTE : Sometimes there are two sections together like 3-13 and 10-8. Perhaps that should be separate on the ballot. MR. ODA: Well , we will have to somehow consolidate those questions in order to be sure that the approval cannot, or the rejection cannot, be separated. I hope we can cover all that in our preparation because there are so many things to do that a slipup here and there can happen. It is up to you folks, how do you want it. If you don ' t want to box them into November. MR. OMONAKA: It would defeat the purpose if we spell out a ten year term, a ten year review, if the Charter Commission is allowed to go beyond ten years. MR. ODA: Into the eleventh year. MR. SCHUTTE: What is the voter turnout. . . if it doesn ' t make any difference,then fine. MR. ODA: The cost of holding a special election, as some of you know, is substantial. If you are already going to have a general election, the cost of printing the additional ballots and other things, of course, would be there, but the general election, nevertheless, has to be held, so the special election costs will not be there, so far as that goes. MR. TRULSON: Could we revise it to state that instead; of it being held in November of the charter review year, it be held as s6on as a special election or the first following general election. -45;- MR. ODA: Right, you can leave it flexible. By special election or at the next scheduled general election. MR. SCHUTTE: I think what they are looking at, then, actually,what Akira says, his position is that if that be the case, anything that we propose now would have to wait another two years before it is implemented. If you are going to vote on it in an election year. MR. ODA: Something has to give, somewhere. MR. TRULSON: At least, they have a leeway. They can have it in November, if they want it or they can have it in January of the following year, too, or March. or April, or they can wait until the next general election. MR. ODA: Right now, the charter contains no requirement as to when the election is supposed to be held. Maybe there was a reason for it, I don ' t know, ten years ago. They left it blank. MR. SCHUTTE: Well, I can see an off year not getting the voter turnout. But, how important is that? Secondly, postponing it to the following year to the general election and not being able to implement it for another two years or so, down the road. MR. ODA: I think it is, if I can give my two-cents, if it is worth anything, that has always been my concern when I first came on as counsel to this commission, is whether the voters will even be interested in these things to even show up. I think, from the little bit I have been talking to people, outside, including the lady who lives with me, she says, if you didn ' t come home and talk about it, I wouldn ' t bother going to vote. I think, perhaps, her state- ment has a lot of truth to it. Those of us who are directly involved in this charter revision are emotionally involved in it. Directly involved. we feel very strong about the amendments. But, for the average person on the street, unless they are affected by it in some way, as an employee of the Water Department, or whatever. A relative of a county councilman, or, you know, whatever. I don ' t think they t _ really intellectually know what is going on or care what is going on. It is a shame but I think it is a blunt fact that we all have to face. What I am afraid to see is that if the amendments go to a special election, you will have only those 'people=who have a pet cause or pet reason to show up to vote. -Those who are strongly in favor or those who have strong feelings against it. You will not have the average so-called neutral individual showing up in the polls. Maybe that is good, I don ' t know. But if you want a good turnout. . MR. TRULSON: Perhaps it is better to have a small turnout of knowledgeable voters than a large turnout of people who don ' t know what they are voting for. They may vote for anything or they may defeat something that is good. -46- A You know, just go out and vote. That may not happen ,but what is the best? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The ConCon and the general went together and from what I gathered at the polls as I was working at the polls, I noticed that when they came to the ConCon ballots, a lot of people just didn 't vote on it, not knowing that that no vote was an acceptance of the ballot. MR. ODA: If you had to go to , the polls just to vote on ConCon amendments, you know, it is a question whether you would have had any kind of a turnout. As important as they may be, because we are lawyers we consider those things very critical, but to the average person, who doesn ' t get involved with the constitution very often, it doesn ' t affect them, as far as they are concerned. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. If the voters are not really interested, even if they have a high turnout, if they are not well versed in the issues, they are not going to vote intelligently anyway. Because they will just be putting x' s on yeses or noes that they have no particular interest in. MR. ODA: To some extent, I agree with you, Mr. Sensano, but on the other hand, the mere fact that it is an election year, the people are more conscious of what issues are going to be coming up at the election booth and they are psychologically tuned up to vote for something or somebody and, ' to that extent, I think they are more ready to look at issues and problems a little more intellectually in an election year. Whereas, in an off election year, like this one, as I said, unless you have a special reason to show up at the polls, in most cases, I may be wrong, you know, I am just shooting from the hip, as I say, my two-cents, but, I would ask you to go out to ask your friends, tomorrow, to ask them whether they know what charter revisions are being proposed, or have they been keeping up and whether they would be showing up at the polls in November to vote. That would be probably a very good gauge to you as to how much interest there is. Because of the importance of these provisions for all of us, I thinIc we , know that, it would be a shame if only 10% of the voters show up. To me, it would be a real shame. For all the work that all of you have put in. Even if it is approved, that is really not the point. The point is, the vast majority of the people of this county have not really had, you know, have not really voiced their true opinion on it, except by apathy, you might say. MR. SENSANO: It is true that many people go to the polls on the election year, but how many of them are voting just for individuals? Sometimes issues are not even looked at. MR. ODA: I agree. -47- MR. SENSANO: Unless an effort is made to go and actually campaign to have the people vote on the charter amendments, it doesn ' t really matter whether it is an election year or not, I believe. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I think our public hearings have shown this too, right, that those that are really interested in a certain aspect of the charter to be changed or revised, they are there, but the -ordinary layman, he doesn ' t care one thing at all. Public hearings, I think, have really shown us this to be true. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that Article XV be accepted as is with the exception of 15-3, the second paragraph from the bottom, beginning with the word. . .Upon receipt of the amendments or charter, the county clerk shall provide for the submission of such amendments or charter to the electors of the county at either a special election as determined by the commission or at the first general election following the charter review year. MR. SCHUTTE: Would you restate that Bud, I kind of lost you. MR. TRULSON: I just changed the wording to read. .either at a special election as determined by the commission or at the first general election following the charter review year. I feel that the language of the present charter states. . .submission of such amendments or charter to the electors of the county at either a general ora special election as determined by the commission. I feel they could use any general election they wanted. I am trying to hold to the first general election after the charter review year. As the maximum time to hold it. MR. ODA: A period after the year so the provision. . .to be held in November of the charter review year would be. . . MR. ISHIDA: Should not the phrase, as determined by the commission ...bea.t' the end?It would read. . .at either a special election or at the first general election following the charter review year, as determined by the commission. MR. TRULSON: The commission can ' t determine that. They can determine when they are going to have it but. . . MR. ISHIDA: The choice is either special or a general election. MR. OMONAKA: You are spelling out two. . . MR. ODA: Yes, otherwise it is left up to the county clerk. -48- MR. TRULSON: No, I said at either a special election as determined by the commission or at the first first general election. MR. ODA: As determined by the commission would be. . MR. TRULSON: However the wording is, you know my intent. . . MR. ODA: So we will put that at the end then. MR. SCHUTTE : Read that whole section, then, Stuart. MR. ODA: As I understand it, then, Bud, correct me, if I am wrong Upon receipt of the amendments or charter, the county clerk shall provide for the submission of such amendments or charter to the electors of the county at a special election or at the first general election following the charter review year, as determined by the commission. MR. TRULSON: As determined by the commission? That doesn ' t make sense. MR. OMONAKA: What he is suggesting is that we leave that parenthesi'zed. . .as determined by the commission . leave that in. MR. TRULSON: Oh, I left it in but he put it at the end. MR. OMONAKA: If they can ' t have a special election then the charter review is going to be held at the next general election date. MR. SENSANO: Mandated. MR. ODA: I 'm sorry, I kind of lost you. MR. OMONAKA: What he is suggesting is that we leave the words in as determined by the commission. MR. ODA: Where? MR, OMONAKA: After special election. . .at a special election, as determined by the commission, or at the first general election after the charter review year. MR. SENSANO: In other words, the election on the general election is no longer the choice of the commission. ®49- MR. ODA: Correct, they would be automatically following. I see, okay. MR. TRULSON: is there a second to the motion? MR. SENSANO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt. . . MR. ODA: Wait, the next paragraph down below we have only the special so that has to be changed, too. MR. OMONAKA: Special OR general election. MR. ODA: The commission shall publish not less than forty-five days. . .why don ' t we just leave the present language in the charter, as is, before ANY election. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Oda, why doesn 't it say the majority of the voters, or the majority of votes cast? What determines whether the amendments are passed? Or is that just understood? It deals with having an election but it doesn 't say what determines. . .dealing with the election , what determines what passes the amendments? MR. ODA: I guess it has been understood it is the majority vote. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Of the votes cast? Shouldn ' t it say in the charter? Somewhere? MR. ODA: That is a good point. If you want one, we can insert one very easily. It might be covered in a general law. RECESS: At 8:47 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 8:59 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. MR. ODA: . Yes, Mr. Chairman, we made a brief survey of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. There appears to be no specific law on it covering the excellent point brought up by Mrs. Kobayashi . I would, therefore, suggest, as she has recommended, or, at least,brought up that a provision be put in there in the following language similar to the one in the Kauai Charter saying that If a majority of 'rvoters voting upon a charter amendment votes in favor o ait or a new charter if a new charter is proposed, the amendment or new charter shall become effective at the time fixed in the amendment or charter. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, would this be incorporated in Section, Article XV? -50- MR. ODA: Yes, we have to incorporate it somewhere in Article XV. Maybe it could just be added to it as a last paragraph. MR. TRULSON: Then I would so amend my motion to incorporate that. MR. SCHUTTE: Second. MR. TRULSON: That would be Section 15-4? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: That wdld be part of Section 15-3. MR. ODA: It can be part of 15-3. MR. OMONAKA: I am just wondering if the second page of this charter amendment is really needed. The underlined last full paragraph. I am just wondering if any proposals of amendments are rejected, is the intent that the present Charter Commission will stay on until they can work out something? Could we read it like that? MR. ODA: I am looking at a situation where if. . I don ' t know whether the commission wants to reconvene if there is any rejection for whatever purpose, you know. MR. SCHUTTE: Akira, what was your question? MR. OMONAKA: I would like to see the last paragraph deleted. If• the Charter Commission does come up with a totally new charter and it is rejected, it looks like they can stay in again until they prepare another document for the electorate. MR. TRULSON: It says until the amendments or charter is ratified or rejected. If itis ratified or if it is rejected. That is as long as they are going to hold office. They shall hold office until it is either ratified or rejected. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I believe that if a new charter should be proposed and is rejected, it would mean that the present charter is working all right. The new proposed charter would not be accepted but the present charter would continue. The same thing with the amendments, if the amendment doesn ' t pass the provision which was intended to be amended will still prevail. MR. OMONAKA: Question the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of this motion? That is to accept 15-1 , 2, and 3 with the proposals, right? Ayes Ishida, Schutte, Noes - None Kobayashi, Iwamoto, Yagong, Trulson, Absent - Cadinha Omonaka, Sensano, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. -51- MR. ODA: Was that section deleted, or what? MR. OMONAKA: No. MR. ODA: Actually, it was intended to end upon the election. ARTICLE III: MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I would like to SECTION 3-2 move that we reconsider Article III , Section 3-2. MR. ISHIDA: I second the motion. MR. ODA: What section was that? CHAIRMAN SAKATA : Section 3-2. It has been moved and seconded that we reconsider Article III , Section 3-2. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. A point of order. According to the rules that we have adopted, the only time a motion to reconsider can be considered would be at the next meeting of which we had that amendment passed and this is the second meeting since then. I think our rules provide that it can ' t be done,.. unless Stuart has an opinion on it. MR. ODA: I 'm sorry, I was consulting my assistant. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We were talking about the reconsideration of Article III , Section 3-2. MR. ODA: What was the. . . MR. OMONAKA: The motion was made by Gloria for reconsideration and it was seconded by Mr. Ishida. I questioned the point of order. The point of order here is the motion to reconsider must be made at the next meeting of the actual statement. This is the second or third meeting since that actual statement with regard to Section 3-2. MR. ODA: Under the Robert ' s Rules of Order a motion to reconsider, first of all , has to be made by a person who voted for the passage of that particular provision and it has to be made during or at the next meeting, as I understand it. During that meeting or the next subsequent meeting. I assume Mrs. Kobayashi qualifies as. . . MR. OMONAKA: She did vote for the motion. What about the person seconding the motion? Can that be anybody? MR. ODA: It doesn ' t say anything about it. I should read the ruling to you. Under Section 60 of Robert ' s Rules of Order, A motion to consider a question a second time. When a question has been once adopted, rejected, or suppressed it cannot be again considered during that session, except by -52- a motion to "reconsider the vote" on that question. This motion can only be made by one who voted on the prevailing side, and on the day the vote was taken which it is proposed to reconsider, or on the next succeeding day. (Well, since this commission doesn ' t meet on the succeeding day, you cannot read the next day into it. I suppose the next session would have to be read into it. ) It can be made and entered on the minutes in the midst of debate, even when another member has the floor, but cannot be considered until there is no question before the assembly, when, if called up, it takes precedence of every motion except to adjourn and to fix the time to which the assembly shall adjourn. A motion to reconsider a vote on a debatable question, opens to debate the entire merits of the original motion. If the question to be reconsidered is undebatable, then the reconsideration is undebatable. So the question is whether the motion is debatable by virtue of whether it is timely, or not. Timeliness. All I can read to you is what the rules say. . . .by one who voted on the prevailing side, and on the day the vote was taken, or on the next succeeding session, I suppose. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda. MR. ODA: If this is a, excuse me, Mr. Trulson, if this is considered to be a motion to amend under Rule 23 of Robert ' s Rules. A motion to amend is different from a motion to reconsider, to the extent that an amendment just makes certain changes such as the illustration here: a motion for a vote of thanks could be amended by striking out "thanks" and inserting "censure; " or one condemning certain customs could be amended by adding other customs. That would be an amendment. An amendment may be in any of the following forms: ( a) to "add" or "insert" certain words or paragraphs; (b) to "strike out" certain words or paragraphs. . .that would be an amendment. A motion to reconsider, of course, brings up the entire matter. It is not an amendment in that extent. The merits of the original question would be brought forth in its entirety. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, what could be used in this particular case? MR. ODA: In Section 3-2, I would think the appropriate motion would be a reconsideration rather than an amendment because the substance of the Composition and Terms of councilmen is being reconsidered, I assume. Not just amended. In other words, an amendment would be probably such i -5 3,- things as not changing the number, perhaps, but voter districts but in other respects where the substance of the original vote or the original provision would not be changed but just by making some changes to it, to the extent that the major portion of it is not substantially changed in any way. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda. MR. ODA: I don 't know, I just. . .I suppose it can be debated whether it is an amendment or a reconsideration. I kind of feel it is more of a reconsideration, honestly, rather than an amendment. MR. SCHUTTE: If the :intent of the motion was to propose an additional proposal, what would that be? MR. ODA: It would be an amendment. If you're adding an additional provision into the. . . MR. SCHUTTE: An alternative. . . MR. ODA: What is that again? MR. SCHUTTE: If the intent of the motion is made with the idea of coming up with an alternative to the original motion. MR. ODA: You mean alternative in what respect? Alternative provision on the ballot? Rather than 5-2, give the voters a choice of 5-4? Just to pull something out of the air. I think it would be both ways, it is an amendment as well as a reconsideration. It is hard to draw a definite line on something like that. MR. SCHUTTE: Well, what we are trying to find out is if Gloria' s motion is in order and if so, with this in mind, what is the appropriate way to handle it? MR. ODA: It is a tough one. I really don ' t have a definite answer on it but I am inclined to feel that it is a motion to reconsider, more so, than a motion to amend. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I call for the question on the motion. MRS. KOBAYASHI : The motion is out of order. MR. TRULSON: The motion is what? MR. ODA: It is probably out of order. Because it is a motion to reconsider. Timeliness. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Oda. However, I thought whatever voting action we have taken was on a tentative basis, was it not? MR. ODA: Yes , that ' s : right. But it is still subject to Robert ' s Rules of Order. -514- 1 MRS. KOBAYASHI: Then I cannot explain the intent of what I am trying to do? MR. OMONAKA: We will listen, for the record. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I still am definitely in favor for the 5-2 setup for the council , however, because of testimony brought forth today, because of concerns that have been raised by other commission members, it would seem to me that that it' was not a clearcut decision among our commission to go the 5-2. The setup of 5-2. So I wanted a reconsideration with later on offering the choice on a ballot to the voters-- since we were not able to, by a majority vote, accept the 5-2 motion, I was hoping to have the question put to the voters. I am talking about the 5 district and 2 at-large, or 5 district and 4 at-large. It seems like testimony in this commission has indicatedall the -commissioners wanted a district and at-large but it seems 1iJ the numbers how many at-large was the question. I thought, well, since there was no majority vote it might have been a good idea to have the voters decide. Perhaps we might have been able to appease the segments of the county that are very much against the action that we have taken. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Have you ruled the motion out of order? I would like to have discussion, really, I don ' t want to stifle anything. I would like to discuss it. Is it your understanding that the most vocal group with regard to council makeup has been the West Hawaii group? It is my understanding, I don' t know, you can correct me if I am wrong, that they prefer a strict district makeup. What you are proposing will compound their disapproval of the 5-2 by going 5-4 with 4 at-large. So what you are suggesting then is 5 district and 4 at-large. It is going to, I don 't know, you can poll the rest of the commissioners but the testimony that I heard, today, and in the past, this would only compound their disapproval of the 7 member council. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman. Akira, I think I questioned Mr. Moss pretty extensively on that particular position. of theirs and they are._definitely in favor of a strict district representation. However, their suggestion is that until reapportionment, that a total of 9 councilmen be elected in the 4 representative districts until after the 1980 census or until after the reapportionment committee decides on drawing different boundaries. They are suggesting that a 9 member commission be adopted until reapportionment. MR. OMONAKA: So you are, in a sense, saying that we should put in another, proposal in addition to what Gloria has. . . . MR. SCHUTTE: No, I was just redirecting your question. . . -5:5,- MR. OMONAKA: Their concept, as I understand it, is they want to have representation. . .by the time the charter gets into full swing with reapportionment. . .is they want to have councilmen strictly by district representation. MR. SCHUTTE : That is right. However, in the meantime, they are suggesting that we not change the total numbers of the council makeup but leave it at _nine and have the nine elected strictly from districts. That would be using the 4 representative districts that we have talked about in the past and that it would stay as such until the County of Hawaii was reapportioned into new districts for a total of nine districts, or, whatever they decide to be done at that time. From what I can understand, they are completely in favor of strict district representation. MR. OMONAKA: So, if we go as Gloria has proposed, it would be making 4 running at-large and this is the thing they object to the most. So they are saying 2 at-large, right now, out of 7. . .so possibly 4 can come of the South Hilo area. MR. SCHUTTE: Would you be able to discuss their position on the nine from districts as they are suggesting? MR. OMONAKA: I don ' t understand. MR. SCHUTTE : What I am saying, Akira, is what is your feeling abouttheir suggestion of the 9 council- men being elected from 4 distr'icts? Pure district representa- tion. On that basis. MR. OMONAKA: My feeling? We have heard testimony that the present way of electing councilmen is no way acceptable, no matter where you ran. There has been testimony that a combination of district and of at-large concept would be most workable for this county. I gave it a lot of thought and I am convinced that the 5 and 2 is workable, as well as if you ask me if 9 with district is workable. I would say,yes. The key to anything is the people in that position. As people have testified, even 5 is workable. In terms of numbers, I think, 5 would be too small and 7 would be just right. Yes, I gave it some thought, just to answer your question. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Since we are discussing it, anyway, I don ' t want to reiterate what I have already said, earlier, but the thing was I think all of us would agree that whatever we adopt we should not be persuaded by which group is the loudest or by numbers. I think we should be persuaded by and what we should digest is the fact that how logical and how the rationale is for each proposal. -56- The difficulty I had in all of this is that most of the people wanted, I think, a bit of flexibility as far as representation is concerned. The number 9 has always been used because that is what we have now. If we reduce it to 7, regardless of whether we have it district or at-large, what we are, in fact, doing is taking this representation away. No matter whether they come from East, West, South or North. This is why I believe we should stick to the number 9. But the thing, I think, also, we should consider is that the. . .as I reviewed the minutes, you know, the people who, to me, presented the most persuasive argument, are those who stuck to 99whether one way-or the other. There were a few who indicated, maybe, a reduced number and there were also a few who indicated a larger number than nine. Then, of course, we had the Kona groups who were advocating a strict 9 member, single member,district representation. I just feel that if we want to present a plan to the county whereby individuals are given the opportunity to be well represented, it seems to be that by cutting the number down, we are really going against it. This is why I can understand Akira' s argument in saying 5-4 may be counter;: productive, but I don ' t look at it as counter productive. Sure, this vocal group may not like at-large representation , but the fact that they are vocal, I don 't think should be the persuasive thing to us. I think we should try to determine what we feel is best and I am not saying you folks are not doing it, but, I am just saying it is my feeling, I think, to give the best representation as far as this county is concerned, I think we should stick to the number 9 and use that figure. MR. OMONAKA: With all due respects to your opinion, Richard, numbers to me, in terms of government. representation is not the key factor. I think the key factor is who you have as representing you is more important. So numbers, to me, is not that critical. MR. ISHIDA: But you have more accessibility . . .it is a question of, you know, we are talking about 9, 7, or 5 . I think if you have accessibility to 9, it is better thanyouu have with 7. MR. OMONAKA: But if you go 5 districts, you do have accessibility, right off the bat. MR. ISHIDA: Yes, but, you say 5 is too little. MR. OMONAKA: No, I am convinced that if you get 5 good guys, we can run this county efficiently. Numbers arent what is important. If we cut it from 9 to 5 , you know, in terms of going to the electorate and say, hey, five. . . -57- because i am convinced, as I sit here now, if you get 5 good guys, 5 good guys can run this council and can represent everybody in this county. So numbers, to me, it is not that. MR. ISHIDA: But I think we should look at how human nature is and how people have so many different views. This is why we have to pick a number where we feel it is workable. We have nine and I see no reason to change it now. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I think I wanted .a reconsider- ation vote because I am very concerned that what this commission decides will not be passed and I haterto think that--and I wanted to create whatever--we really have got to work on how we work on the ballot, and how we sell whatever amendments we pass. It seems like this particular issue is the one that is going to be one of the hot ones and I thought, well , this would be one way to give the voters a choice. Right now, they have either the 7 or the present method and I thought, well , if we put the 5-4 on, it would give them a third alternative. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: What you are proposing then is that you want two alternatives on the ballot. MRS. KOBAYASHI : No, that is what I wanted but it can ' t be done. I would suggest that we do everything we can to sell whatever we decide. MR. TRULSON: Has the Chair ruled on the point of order? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is out of order. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, is it stands now, is there any other way to make this alternative available? It seems rather unfortunate that this situation has come this way. MR. ODA: I saw a provision in the Maui ballot, I think„; YOU know, the sample ballots that were passed out by George Tamashiro. . .I don ' t happen to have it right here with me. On the Kauai one, there was a provision in there. . . retention of present tufo year term; four year term and limited to two consecutive terms ; four year term and no limitation. I would suspect that that is the way that the Charter Review Commission initially voted that the question be put to the electorate. That is why they ended up on the ballot that way. Look on the one for Maui , the last page that I have on my handout. . .option number ( 1) two year term for councilmen, and option ( 2) four year term for councilmen. There doesn ' t seem to be anything about the number of councilmen in any of the' proposals being left to the electorate. The term of the councilmen are left up to the electorate but not the number. I don ' t know what that really means or whether it means anything at all. -58- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I think there is one on the last page, on the Honolulu Charter for the City and County of Honolulu, option one and option two. Option one is shall provide for a nine member council , each member of which shall be elected by district. Option two is shall provide for a nine member council , five of which shall be elected at-large. MR. ODA: I don ' t have that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It is the last one of the sample sheets. MR. ODA: Honolulu? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Honolulu. MR. TRULSON: General election official ballot of ' 72. MR. ODA: Oh, yes, right. The number is set, though. It is a nine member council in each option. The first option is that each shall be elected by district and the second one is that five shall be elected by district and four at-large. To answer your question, Mr. Schutte, I really don' t know how. If this concern was expressed at the time, or before, the vote was taken then consideration could have been given to two options being presented to the electorate. I can ' t think of any way, right now, that would permit a reconsideration of that single option. MR. SCHUTTE: Well I think like we talked to you about, earlier, today, I think the general consensus was relative to our Rules and Regulations and if you look back upon the May 29 meeting, 20th session, Mr. Ishida asked for a point of clarification. He said. . .as we go to each of these sections and as we adopt these motions, what is the effect of these actions? Does that mean that as far as this body is concerned that there is no further discussion on this particular section that we adopt? It can never be reopened? Mr. Oda, your reply was. .I wouldn ' t say cannot be reopened, but for all practical purposes, that ' s it. Mr. Ishida says. .In these cases where we do have a unanimous vote, under what conditions can it be reopened? Mr. Oda. . .By a subsequent motion to reopen. Mr. Ishida. . .Is that proper? Mr. Oda. . .I don ' t see why not. It ' s a motion that can be amended or subsequently discussed all over again, if the body feels that way. 59- Mr. Ishida. . .I feel that what we are doing, right now, is working toward a tentative draft with that intent that we do have the right to review it the next time around again , if we wish to do so. I just want to make that clear because as we go along and take a unanimous vote, I have a very funny feeling that it may be improper to reopen it unless there is one by an opposing count of persons. Mr. Oda. . .Under Rule 23 of Robert ' s Rules of Order, it says her, "an amendment may be inconsistent with one already adopted or may directly conflict with the spirit of the original motion, but it must have a direct bearing upon the subject of that motion. " in other words, you can make an amendment, a motion to amend a previous motion. On the next page, page 13. . .Mr. Omonaka. . . Mr Chairman. I think the rules that we have adopted provide for that until the final draft is agreed upon, everything is according to the tentative. It ' s here in the rules. So, rules that we have already adopted, it says that everything we have adopted will be tentative until the final draft is in. I think, with this in mind, this body assumes that this business could be brought back again to this commission. . .As a result, nothing was done prior to this to make it known. MR. ODA: Those same rules, unfortunately, state tentative decisions shall be subject to the Robert ' s Rules of Order. MR. SCHUTTE: Right, but, I think the idea or intent of that information that was asked was that as it was given was that any decision that was made could be re-submitted . . . MR. ODA: Well , there was no specific question as to motions to reconsider, though. MR. SCHUTTE: I think it was. . .because Mr. Ishida asked. . .What if this happens? MR. ODA: Well , Mr. Schutte, I would have to refer to the Robert' s Rules of Order. . . MR. SCHUTTE : No, I understand, Mr. Oda. I am just saying that this is what the majority of us felt that everything was tentative, not realizing that the difference between an amendment and a reconsideration. . . MR. ODA: At the time that that question was posed, I think it was quite an appropriate question but a very broad question , as you stated, and the response I gave of necessity was a broad based response. Now, tonight, the commission has asked me to give a specific response to a -69- specific question as to a motion to reconsider. I am being asked to make a legal interpretation under the Robert ' s Rules of Order as to a motion to reconsider. The only thing that I can refer to is Rule 60 and Rule 23 and I have read those provisions into the record. You can read English as well as I can. In my opinion , it is a motion to reconsider, at this juncture. MR. SCHUTTE: I understand. I was merely bringing up a point to show why this body did not initiate anything sooner. MR. ODA: I think sometimes we choke on our own rules. MR. SCHUTTE: Well , it is unfortunate that the intent which was there, initially, of reconsideration for tentative agreements because of rules is found out of order, at this time. MR. ODA: I agree. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. On this particular matter, I felt that when the vote was finally taken, I remember-,this matter was brought up at a meeting and because we felt it was important enough so we deferred action until the next meeting and then we took final action. When I voted, I felt that the result, and I accepted the result, was the consensus of the majority of the group, because it wasn ' t brought up at that particular meeting and acted upon at the same night but we deferred it because we felt it was an important matter. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, before I forget, the stapled handout for next week ' s session, I would request that the members try to read the provisions as have been amended and -.it 'inay be there are errors in it that I may have made in putting this thing together. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda. Regarding reading those. . .If they have been acted upon more than one week ago there is nothing we can do about it anyway, is that the way I understand it? MR. ODA: Well , I am not asking for recon- sideration, all I am asking this body. . .if you folks don ' t want to read it, don ' t read it, I mean, I don ' t care. MR. TRULSON: I am not saying that but there is nothing that we can change except perhaps. . .we cannot change the intent or anything except the spelling or punctuation. . MR. ODA: I suppose so, yes. But, as I said, I am not asking for reconsideration. It is a courtesy. It is a courtesy I want to extend to you folks to look at it. -61- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move for adjournment. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will make the announcement for the next meeting. It will be Wednesday, again, July 181, The time will be 3 : 30 p.m. instead of 3 o'clock. ADJOURNMENT: At 9: 47 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Next meeting - Wednesday, July 18, 1979, 3: 30 p.m. , Hawaii County Councilroom. 41 loan Carnett, RECORDING SECRETARY -62- SUNSET LAW At least once every four years , the council shall critically review every program supported wholly or partially by county funds , and unless the council shall favorably authorize its continuation at current or modified levels , the program shall y f crit be terminated. - - - e depart- The council shall adopt procedures and details to implement this section. July 9 , 1979 Section 13-4 . Boards and Commissions . Except as otherwise provided in this charter, all boards and commissions specifically established by this charter shall be governed by the following provisions : (a) The members shall serve staggered terms of three years beginning with any new appointee to any board or commission after January 1, 1980 . (b) The members shall be appointed by the mayor , confirmed by the council and may be removed upon the recommendation of the mayor, with the approval of the council. (c) No member shall be appointed to more than two consecutive terms to the same board or commission; membership on any board or commission shall not, therefore, exceed six years . (d) and (e) OK, no change (f) Delete "Except as otherwise provided in this charter" (g) through (j ) OK, no change (k) Notwithstanding any other provision in this charter , no person shall , by reason of his occupation alone , be barred from serving as a member of any board or commission. July 9 , 1979 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 16-1. Schedule. After its ratification by the electorate, this amended charter shall take full effect on January 1, 1980 . Section 16-2. Initial Election Under this Charter. The first county primary and general elections under this amended charter shall be held in the year 1980 . Section 16-3 . Existing Laws and Conflicting Laws . OK Section 16-4 . Status of Agencies and Transfer of Functions . When this charter takes full effect: (a) All offices , departments , boards and commissions , the status of which are not specifically changed or abolished by this charter, are hereby recognized, continued and established and shall have such powers , duties and functions as provided by law or ordinance. Members of the various boards and commissions , excluding the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency, holding office at the effective date of this amended charter shall continue in office unless they resign or until their terms of office shall expire, at which time new members shall be appointed in accordance with this amended charter. Delete present subsections (b) and (c) , 4; (b) The public works board of appealsr`shall stand abolished and 7 their functions transferred to the extent provided in Section tdNJ The mayor shall appoint tw.o members to the present planning board of appeals; cep- -...-_ - - - ..-c - _ .•�-•__er for- tom – he - umbers=sha-l-l �ieeafe – –a�$oited— Subsections (d) (e) (f) and (g) OK Delete subsection (h) Delete section 16-5 Temporary Budget and Capital Program Section 16-6 and 16-7 OK Section 16-8. Department Heads Continued in Office. Notwithstand- ing any provision to the contrary, each department head (including department heads appointed by boards or commissions) holding office when this charter takes full effect shall continue in office until . t.,.r he is removed pursuant to the provisions of this charter. Section 16-9 through 16-11 OK Delete sections 16-12 and 16-13 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ADDITIONAL NOTES 1. Article XII : Pursuant to this section, the council has enacted the provisions of the Revised Laws of Hawaii. This article appears to be unnecessary. 2 . Section 13-18 . Claims. the time for notice must be changed to two years (Supreme Court ruling) 3. Section 14-2 (c) According to Roxanna Garcia ' s testimony, this subsection must be deleted. ARTICLE XV CHARTER AMENDMENT OR REVISION Section 15-1. OK except amend subsection (b) to read: (b) Each elector signing such petition shall print his name, add [to] his signature, his residence address , his social security number and the date of signing on said petition. (Remainder of section OK) EXCEPT last sentence : change to 20 days Section 15-2 . OK Section 15-3. Mandatory Charter Reviews . The charter shall be reviewed in 1989 and every -tenth year thereafter. Not later than the fifteenth day of January of the charter review year, [Ten years after the radification of the charter and at inter- vals of ten years thereafter, ] the mayor with the [approval] confirmation of the council , shall appoint a charter commission composed of eleven members [representing the various geographical areas of the county] to study and review the operation of the government of the county under this charter. Commission members , no more than . a majority of whom shall belong to the same political party, shall be representative of the various geographical areas of Puna, Katu, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo. The council shall appropriate funds to enable the commission to carry out its duties , including the hiring of necessary staff. The commission shall hold at least one public hearing in each of the geographical areas . The commission may propose amendments to the exisitng charter or a draft of a new charter which shall be submitted to the county clerk. Upon receipt of the amendments or charter, the county clerk shall provide for the submission of such amendments or charter to the electors of the county at 64- ee-e-c41 a special election . s determined by the commission, o - - - The commission shall publish not less that forty-five days before [any] th-e--spe-G-ial election, at least once in a daily newspaper of general circulation within the county, a brief digest of the amendments of charter and the purpose thereof and a notice to the electorate that copies of the amendments or charter •q i are available at the office of the county clerk. Members of the commission shall hold office until the amend- ments or charter is ratified or rejected.