The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCHC 1979-07-18 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 27th Session July 18, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The twenty-seventh session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 3 : 37 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 Absent Mr. Harlan Cadinha and Excused : Mr. Stephen Bess, Corporation Counsel (5 : 30-6 : 20 ) Also Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Present: Ms. Frances Higa, Research Assistant Mrs. Joan Carnett , Secretary APPROVAL The Chair called for the approval of minutes OF MINUTES: dated July 3, 1979 with the following corrections: Page 32. Roll call vote. Delete second/Cadinha7. Replace with Schutte. Page 39. Richard Ishida statement. 6th paragraph. To read They have an independent position and this is why delete /indenture? Page 55. Roll call vote. (top) Absent vote. Delete/7anaga7. Replace with Yagong.— N Motion was made by Mr. Yanaga to accept the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Schutte and unan- mously carried. COMMUNI- The following communications were considered : CATIONS: Comm. - 73: Letter from Mary E. Vail , Capt. Cook , dated July 3, 1979,regarding proposed revisions to the charter. Comm. 74: Letter from Dr. & Mrs. Frank H. Sayre, Kailua- Kona, dated July 6, 1979,regarding proposed revisions to the charter. Comm. 75 : Letter from Lydia Kuhlmann on behalf of the Women ' s Center, dated July 11, 1979, regarding revisionsto the charter. Comm. 76: Letter from Ginny Aste, Status of Women, dated July 11 , 1979 , offering assistance in dissemination of information to voters. Comm. 77: Letter from Carol Soderlund, President, American Association of University Women, dated July 9, 1979, regarding revision to the charter. Comm. 78: Letter from Marjorie B. Robertson, Kona League of Republican Women, dated July 5 , 1979, regarding revision to the charter. Comm. 79 : Presentation by William W. Moss, West Hawaii Committee to Charter Commission on July 11 , 1979. Motion was made by Mrs. Iwamoto to receive and file Communications 73 through 79. Seconded by Mr. Schutte and unanimously carried. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We have a letter from R. B. Legaspi , Chairman, Program Committee, The Exchange Club of Waiakea. They are having a luncheon on the 14th of August at 12 noon at the Omega 10 and would like to have a Commissioner explain to them the highlights of the proposed amendments. Also we have another communication from Ginny Aste, Chairperson on the Committee of the Status of Women which will be on the agenda for next week, too. -2- RULES OF MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I would like to PROCEDURE: make a motion to amend the Rules of Procedure in order to reconsider, add to, or amend those sections of the charter that may have been moved on previously. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: it has been moved and seconded that we amend the Rules of Procedure on motions that have been previously passed and carried. MR. SCHUTTE: I refer to the point of order as Rule #14, Rules of Procedure, adopted April 3, 1979 which states : These rules may be amended at any meeting by a majority of the commission members. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on this? MR. SCHUTTE: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? To change the Rules of Procedure on motions that have been carried. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. In making this motion, Mr. Schutte, is it your intention to discuss every item that we have discussed or do you have any specific things in mind? Before we take vote on the motion? MR. SCHUTTE: There are specifics, Akira. One of them is Section 3-2. Composition and Terms. County Council. Secondly, there is the Corporation Counsel which I think should be looked at. All this does, is, I think, after looking at some of the language, that there are a couple of words that have to be changed and ,I think ,if we don ' t include that then we are going to have to come back and rule again on this same situation. It ' s just a clean-up one. The main object of this motion is to reconsider Section 3-2. MR. OMONAKA: As another plan or a possible multiple? MR. SCHUTTE: As a multiple choice. That is, not to delete what exists or what has been worked on, but , to offer a second option on the ballot. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on this: MRS. IWAMOTO: I would like to get Mr. Oda' s opinion about this. MR. ODA: The motion on the floor right now is to amend the Rules of Procedure? -3- MR. SCHUTTE: The motion on the floor right now, Stuart, is to amend the Rules of Procedure. MR. OMONAKA: Or rather to suspend? MR. ODA: To amend or to suspend? MR. SCHUTTE: It was to amend. I just quoted the point of order being Rule #14. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I would prefer a motion to suspend. MR. SCHUTTE: I would so make that motion. To suspend instead of amend. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is to suspend the Rules of Procedure. It has been moved and seconded. Any other discussion on this? MR, TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Ishida, Kobayashi , Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Cadinha Yagong, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. ARTICLE III MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I would also like SECTION 777 to move at this time, this is in regard to Article III , Legislative Branch, Section 3-2, Composition and Terms. . .I move that the presently proposed 5 'district, 2 at-large council makeup be option #1 on the ballot. That option #2 be as follows : There shall be a county council composed of 9 members. Three from district #2, and 2 each from district #1 , district #3 , and district #4. Three shall reside and be elected from district #2, and 2 each shall reside and be elected from district #1 , district #3 , and district #4. MR. OMONAKA: I will second the motion. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Schutte, would you kindly repeat those figures and areas, again? MR. SCHUTTE: Certainly. The motion is that the presently proposed 5 district, 2 at-large council makeup be option #1 on the ballot. And that option #2 be as follows: -4- There shall be a county council composed of 9 members. Three from district #2, and 2 each from district #1, district #3, and district #4. Three shall reside and be elected from district #2, and 2 each shall reside and be elected from district #1 , district #3, and district #4. MR. TRULSON: Would these be two year terms, four year terms, staggered terms? MR. SCHUTTE: I do not have that in a motion. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I would like to have that repeated again. He went too fast. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Sensano, what portion do you want me to repeat? The entire motion? Or the new option? MR. SENSANO: Yes, the new option. MR. SCHUTTE: Option #2 shall be as follows: There shall be a county council composed of 9 members. Three from district #2, and 2 each from district #1, district #3, and district #4. . Three shall reside and be elected from district #2, and 2 each shall reside and be elected from district #1, district #3, and district #4. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schutte, on your proposal , what is your intention as far as reapportionment is concerned? MR. SCHUTTE: I believe that when reapportionment does come about that there could be 9 districts. MR. ISHIDA: In other words, your thinking then is when the reapportionment commission is appointed that it will have authority to district the island into 9 individual single member districts? MR. SCHUTTE: i don 't know if we already have that taken into consideration but I believe that the intent of this is to maintain district representation. MR. ISHIDA: What Iam concerned about is in your proposal , what authority _ r-e----you intending. to give the commission? As the original plan, or proposal, that has been tentatively adopted, the reapportionment commission would only reapportion to 5 single member districts. In your proposal , you are thinking of how many single member districts? MR. SCHUTTE: I have not specifically mentioned it but what I am primarily thinking about is that they possibly be reapportioned to 9 districts. MR. ISHIDA: Nine single member districts? MR. SCHUTTE: Right. I haven ' t given it that much consideration because I believe we do have some language on reapportionment, at this time, and I have not looked into that position. I believe that, myself, in stating it that there would be 9 districts, at a later date. -5- MR. ISHIDA: I think we are going to have to make a determination now because otherwise it directly affects us as to what plan are we really adopting. The plan that you are proposing is, I think, the one that is the tentative proposal, or an interim type of proposal , presented by the Kona group. But, it is only an interim type of situation, so what are we really going to ask or place before the voters as far as a permanent plan is concerned? MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman, would one of the other commissioners want to comment on that a moment? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are there any other comments on this discussion? Right now, Mr. Schutte, you are proposing that from the four districts you are going to get a total of nine, right? MR. SCHUTTE : That ' s right. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: And then in the reapportionment districts you are talking about 9 districts..and 9 members running? MR. ISHIDA-: I don 't know. That is what I wanted to verify. MR. SCHUTTE: I said that is what I. . .I ' ll restate it. . .that is what I 'm looking at. MR. ISHIDA: I would just like to say that I like the number 9. That is what I have always been stating. I think we should stick to the number 9, but I don ' t think as far as this county is concerned, 9 single member districts will really fit the bill. I feel that there should be some at-large representation. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Right now, Mr. Schutte' s proposal is all residency requirements, right? Where they have to reside in that specific district. MR. SCHUTTE: The entire intent of the motion is specific district representation. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. If that is the intent then the motion should reflect the fact that the setup as proposed by the mover of the motion is only temporary :until such time as the whole island is districted into 9 districts or whatever it is. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Sensano, are you suggesting then that this be interim proposal to the ballot? MR. SENSANO: Yes, I would. MR. SCHUTTE: In the event of reapportionment then this would be taken under consideration in addition to option #1? I believe option #1 which is the 5-2, would also be considered and that when that reapportionment does come -6- about, whichever option is voted on by the public, then I believe it would be' that time that the reapportionment committee would work on that particular option. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. _Chairman. Mr. Oda, if we do. . . like every amendment that we have for the charter now if it is put on the ballot we would have to- -well;,it depends on what we want to do, was to spell out what the pr-opo_sedchanges are yes or no so if we have more than one if this commission so rules that a plurality, or if you have three propositions, the one getting the most votes, would that be carried? Is that possible? MR. ODA: Yes. MR. ISHIDA: Could I have a clarification on your answer? If you have more than two proposals then any proposal which has a plurality can be considered ruling? MR. ODA: I would think so. If you have two candidates running for one office, the guy with the highest vote wins. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Question the motion. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I was one of the six charter commissioners who voted for a 7 member county council, 5 to be elected from the 4 representative districts on this island and 2 at-large. In my humble opinion a 7 person council can do as effective a job for our people as can a 9 person council. Quantity, in my estimation, is not the answer to our council woes. It is the quality of the men and women we elect to represent us that is of prime importance. While I still believe that a 7 person council is the best for this county, I also know that only a fool , or a very strong headed individual , would not change his mind if a compromise is required on an issue, but not on a principle. And to me the member composition of the council is an issue, not a principle. I frankly admit that my second choice for our council makeup would have been a 9 person council,,. 5 to be elected from the 4 representative districts and 4 at-large .2 from West Hawaii and two from East Hawaii. The West Hawaii boundary would be from Ka'u to Kona, including Kohala and Waimea; the East Hawaii boundary: would encompass the area from Waipio Valley to the Volcano. Such a 9 person council would have given West Hawaii a 3 person representation. But in order to give Kona what West Hawaii spokesmen say is "fair representation" and to eliminate the charges levelled by them at the Charter Commission, I am prepared to disregard my second option. -7- I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, will support the submittal of two proposals for action by our voters. These two proposals are: ( 1 ) The 7 person council we approved on a 6-5 vote and ( 2) A 9 person council, each council person to be elected from a duly apportioned district. The submittal of these two proposals will give the voters of this county the opportunity of selecting the one they believe will give them the best representation possible. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Thank you, Mr. Sensano. MR. SCHUTTE : Thank you, Mr. Sensano, for your support of the motion. I call for the question. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman, before we call for the question. I have a question for Mr. Oda. If there are two options as presented as covered in the motion to the electorate, we are, in fact, presenting three options to them, are we not? The present one and two options? MR. ODA: No, not really. The present one stays in the book but it won ' t really be on the ballot. MR. ISHIDA: If the present one isn 't on the ballot, when we put the two options on the ballot, are we, in fact, eliminating the present one by doing that? MR. ODA: In effect, I think that is what ' s happening. MR. ISHIDA: Can we do that? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. In terms of ballot design, we should put three propositions in. . .no change, proposition #1 , proposition #2 and the plurality of that would carry. MR. ODA: If you just put two, you are, in effect, already deleting the present charter provision. MR. ISHIDA: How can we present it to the electorate so that let ' s assume there are 50% of the electorate that wants the present setup? MR. ODA: As has been suggested, put the third option. . . MR. OMONAKA: First of all. . .are you willing to accept the present council makeup. ®and they have a chance to vote on that then no change. . . MR. ODA: ' No change, ,_option _#1 and option #2. . . number 3, I mean. MR. ISHIDA: Mydifficultyis this. If we put justoption #1 , and option #2, right? This is what this commission approves, now, can we just put option #l , and option #2? -8- Do we have the power to just do that? Because in effect we are saving, we are not going to have the status quo. We are making that decision. Do we have the authority to make that decision? MR. ODA: My shotgun opinion is yes. The reason is even if we had only one proposal , you don' t put the present language in there, the present option in there. MR. ISHIDA: But if one proposal doesn ' t have a majority then we automatically retain our present one. But in this other way, there is no such alternative. In other words, weare`-_,saying=that we determine the present plan is no good and it is not acceptable. My question is, does this commission have that authority? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. What about the transferring of the water board from a semi-autonomous to the county? How will the ballot be designed are you in favor? Yes or no. If no, it stays back, right? MR. ISHIDA: Right, that is my understanding. MR. ODA: As I understand your question, your question is only related to two options because it doesn ' t include the present charter, right? So, what if one receives 1 ,000 votes and the other receives 999, which provision prevails? That, basically, is your question. Because we are not presenting the present option, the present charter as an option. MR. ISHIDA: No, what I am saying, does: this commission have the authority to not present the present one? Because we are, in effect, saying, hey, we don ' t want it, it is not going to be on this next charter. MR. ODA: Okay, in that situation, where you have at least two separate options, aside from the present charter provision, I would suggest that you have the present charter stated as an option--no change, or whatever. Any time you have two separate options aside from the present one, if you have only one option, then you can fall back to the original one if it doesn ' t pass, right? You don ' t even have to state it as an option. But, if you have two separate options aside from the present charter provision, on the same matter, I think you have to put the present language as an option, being the third option , or one of the three, anyway. Only in that situation where you have two other options to make it absolutely clear which one of the three prevails. Otherwise, your question is, I think, well taken. There will be some doubt as to whether you fall back to the original one or not. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I believe that it was relatively assumed that there would be thisput onto the ballot, but, I believe what we are talking about is ballot design. -9- Because this involves not only this particular motion but every other change that has been made in the charter, that we have made, so this is no different than any other change that has been made. It is just that this carries one additional option. MR. ODA: I 'm looking at the 1972 City and County of Honolulu ballot. They already had a charter and they had two options, two different options but there is no option as to the then present charter. MR. ISHIDA: It ' s a two part question on that ballot. . It says, if you want the nine then you select which option. MR. SENSANO: We have to make sure that we don ' t have the confusing ballot like they had for the ConCon. MR. TRULSON: This ballot says if you agree should it be revised and if you say yes then you vote for #1 or #2. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Are we discussing the points of this motion? Or are we discussing ballot design? MR. ISHIDA: I think we are discussing the substance of this because I think it is vital as to what are we really presenting to the electorate. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, Richard, but what we are talking about is not only this motion but it involves every other change that we have made. That ' s the consideration we have to take in ballot design for everything else. MR. ISHIDA: This is not ballot design. MR. SCHUTTE: Why? MR. ISHIDA: Because we are, in fact, giving them only two options, or are we giving them three options? MR. SCHUTTE: It just happens the only difference between this motion and every other change that we have made here is that this particular motion has two options, a 5-2 and a straight 9 man council. That' s the only difference. When we reconsidered these other options, or these other changes that have been made, ballot design comes into play, also, because there are a number of changes that the voter has to be aware of does he want to retain what exists today or is he going to take over what is subject to change. MR. ISHIDA: I need to understand what the effect of it is when it is presented. If, under your two plans, we put these two options, what I want to know definitely or legally, is if we present these two options as you have stated, is it going to be one, or two, or is it going to be three? That ' s what I want to know. -10- MR. SCHUTTE: I assume. . .T_ assume, now, in addition to everything else, the original would be put on the ballot and the second because if it is not there, if there are no more than two options then I would assume--and this is taking it from what you have said--that what is there now would stand. Is that correct? MR. ODA: If what happens? MR. SCHUTTE : If whatever is on the charter now would stand. MR. ODA: In case of what? MR. SCHUTTE: If the voting public did not accept what we had proposed. MR. ODA: Up to now? MR. SCHUTTE : Yes. MR. ODA: Right. MR. SCHUTTE: So whatever else would stand. MR. ODA: Right. We don ' t have a multiple option situation, except right now, so you always fall back to the original if the proposal is defeated. So far as the way I understand Richard Ishida' s question , I think that matter touches on ballot design and yet, as I say, if you have multiple, two options in addition to the present language of the charter I would hate to see a Lawsuit to determine which one prevails. So I think that that matter should be clarified in terms of whether, in fact, if we have two options, do we, in fact, have three including the present one? MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. I amend my motion to include the existing council makeup as option #3. MR. TRULSON: Second. MRS.KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman , may I ask counsel , is the second option constitutional? It is all district. It ' s district representation from the 4 districts, 4 present representative districts. MR. ODA: In terms of the one-man , one-vote? MRS. KOBAYASHI: I suppose from what Kalani says, it is an interim solution, but I just wondered if it is constitutional. MR. ODA: The numerical setup was 3, 2, 2, 2, right? I don ' t=-frankly, I think it will stand. It can be questioned in terms of how many voters in South Hilo and district #2 would be represented by the three people and °°,gumerically I 'm sure it won ' t come out but I think looking at it as a whole, I would think because it ' s a preliminary and tentative apportionment -11- until such time that a reapportionment commission acts, I. would think that it would probably be constitutional. Because even ,the present House districting, based on the State House of Representatives by population right now is highly irregular anyway. It ' s just another form of irregularity, the way I see it. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Correct me, if I am wrong, Mr. Schutte. The motion is to have three options. Option #1 will be the 5-2 council makeup, 5 from the districts and 2 at- large. Option #2 would 9 members and it would be 3 from district #2, and 2 each from district 1 , 3, and 4 with residency requirements. The third option was to include the present makeup to be a 5-4 makeup of the council. MR. SCHUTTE: That ' s correct. MR. OMONAKA: So the intent, Mr. Chairman , would be that this is an interim setup and there will be a timetable for a complete reapportionment for 9 separate single council districts. So there would have to be another reapportionment language provision set up if this proposal. . . MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, that ' s true, Mr. Omonaka. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. ISHIDA: just for the record, I think you said the last alternative was 5-4. It' s really 6-3. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Correction , that ' s right. 3 at-large, right? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Yagong, Omonaka, Sensano, Ishida, Absent - Cadinha Kobayashi, Iwamoto, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. ISHIDA: Because I like the number 9, I ' ll have to go along with this motion, although I would like at-large members. MR. SCHUTTE: Thank you, Richard. RECESS: At 4: 22 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 4:51 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. -12- MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate at this time to discuss first of all in regards to this 9 member council, the length of office2_ That it be two years as one consideration or that it be staggered four and two with the individual receiving the largest votes out of a district serving for four years and the other serving for two, if it ' s to be staggered. In the case of Hilo, I would assume then also that in district 42, the largest vote getter there would serve the four years and the other two council members would serve the two year terms, if we are looking at a staggered term. Just as a matter of discussion before so we can put something to a motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: What is the feeling of the rest of you? Do you want four year terms, staggered terms, 4-2? Or, strictly a two year term for the 9 members? On the 5-2 proposal it was strictly two years for districts and four years for at-large. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. As far as the 5-2 is concerned I think the terms should stand as originally proposed. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, that ' s correct, Herman. I think what we are looking at is we have to put the language in on the 9 member council and specifically state the intent so that could be added on if that happens to be the option that the voters so desire. We have to make the term of office stipulated. I just mentioned this for discussion if some of the other members would discuss it while I am trying to read over the other reapportionment sections. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. If we did stagger them it would give more continuity to the council. If you're going to have 4 members with 4 year terms and 5 members with 2 year terms. Then again you more than likely are not going have 9 new councilmen every two years. There has been a lot of concern by various people regarding the staggered terms and the continuity of the council, especially with regard to the 2 year term. They figure it takes 2 years to learn what they are doing. . .I would like this open for discussion, but it would seem like we would have more continuity if we had staggered terms. Realistically, you will probably not have most councilmen reelected for more than two terms. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other input from this? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. with regard to the 9 member district councilmen. If they vote to come strictly from district, I would like to think that a 2 yeari\, term is sufficient and the whole concept of district represen- tation is to have the man responsive to the electorate and there is nothing wrong with a guy getting elected and going back to his constituents every year and say, hey, look at me, this is what I 've been doing and this is what I refer to as being responsive. So I would prefer a 2 year term for councilmen running from districts. -13- MR. TRULSON: Is that a motion, Mr. Omonaka? MR. OMONAKA: No, Mr. Schutte wanted some discussion on this. MR. SCHUTTE: Yes, I would like a little more discussion on it. Akira has made one suggestion. If other commissioners would so discuss it. I was looking over the reapportionment section, Stuart, would you go to reapportion- ment under your proposals. That would be line (g) , subsection (g ) . I 'm trying to put language in there that could be used so that it would reflect any of the three alternative proposals. Right now it says the commission may apportion the five district council seats. What I 'm looking at is saying the commission may apportion the council district seats, then if that would take into consideration any one of the options that may be voted for. MR. ODA: The present charter doesn ' t have any district seats. It refers to geographical districts. Residents of Puna, Ka'u, etc. So it ' s not really districting in a true sense. MR. SCHUTTE: I understand. How can we reword this particular section to take into consideration. . .the bottom portion I believe is no problem. . .what we are looking at is just this one section giving them the authority to do this. In case the 5-2 goes in, they may do it, or the 9. . .just change the language on it. Which would be acceptable, legally, to allow this to happen? That seems to be the only portion of this reapportionment that should be changed. MR. ODA: I don ' t know. Offhand, I can 't. . . because the present charter doesn ' t have any such House District designation, right now, I just don 't have the appropriate language to put in. I ' ll just have to sit down and work it out because the word "district" won ' t have the same significance as the House District. MR. SCHUTTE : What were you referring to, Stuart, when you said may apportion a five district council seats? You were talking about the 5-2? MR. ODA: The 5-2 system. MR. SCHUTTE: So if we you referred to the five district council seats? MR. ODA: Well , supposing, you see. . .what I am thinking about. . .supposing the present charter provision prevails? MR. SCHUTTE: That ' s what I 'm saying. What language can we use in that particular line? Would it be appropriate. . . -14- MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. If the charter provision prevails over the two propositions then we don' t need the reapportionment language in the charter. So the only reason the reapportionment provision is set in is because of that district setup. The reapportionment language has to be tied into the two propositions so if either one prevails then we have to have language to take care of it. MR. SCHUTTE: So what I 'm saying now, Akira, is that particular portion seems to be the :only subsection that would have to be changed to take into consideration those two options. MR. ODA: All you've got to do is take out that word "five" for the two options. MR. OMONAKA: And the present language would suffice? MR. ODA: Yes. MR. SCHUTTE: Okay, fine. So we take out the word "five" and just say the commission may apportion the district council seats. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Getting back to the length of terms of the 9 member council. I would have to agree with Mr. Omonaka that 2 year terms would suffice. I think some of the concern before about 4 year terms was mainly with at-large. If you put a 2 year term, you'd be running one year and working one year. Being strictly from district they will not have to campaign as much as they would at-large. I feel 2 year terms and not being staggered is best and I would so move. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we limit the term of the 9 member council to 2 years. Any other discussion? MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I 'd like to speak in favor of the motion on the basis that this commission has been most concerned about participation as far as representa- tion is concerned. Should we go into a staggered term on the basis of a 4 year term on a 9 single member district, we are, in effect, telling that at every general election that at least half of the district are not going to be participating whatso- ever and I don' t think that ' s right. So I ' ll go along with the 2 year term. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. SCHUTTE: Question. -15- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are you ready for the question? Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Trulson, Schutte, Noes - None Yagong, Omonaka, Sensano, Yanaga, Absent - Cadinha Iwamoto, Kobayashi, - 1 Ishida, Sakata - 10 Carried. SECTION 3-3 : MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. A correction as suggested by counsel regarding Section 3-3, Reapportionment and Reapportionment Years. Subsection (g) A move to delete the word "five" where it says the commission may apportion the "five" district council seats. . .I move that we delete the word "five" so that this section would read. .the commission may apportion the district council seats. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we delete the word /five from Section 3-3 on subsection (g) . Any other discussion-on this? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Then the intent here is that if either one of the 5-2 or the 9 district fails that there will be no reapportionment language in this charter. Is that correct? MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. It is my under- standing according to counsel that if we reverted back to what exists today, that the language would stand. MR. ISHIDA: Can we clarify that point? Since whatever option- is to be decided, there is going to be a reapportionment section for each plan. Can 't we just consolidate it as each option. In other words, the status quo would not have a reapportionment plan. MR. ODA: So there is no reapportionment plan except for option #1, and #2? MR. OMONAKA: Right. MR. ISHIDA: I would like to put a question to counsel. You know, in view of the fact that although it is statutorily mandated that the 1980 census be reported out by April 1 , 1981, does that in any way affect our provision in our reapportionment section about 1983? I don ' t know whether in fact it •would be reported. . . MR. ODA: What specific section was that? -16- MR. ISHIDA: Subsection (a) . We originally adopted the year 1983 because I think we were informed that the last census was published in 1972, I think , :the 1970 census. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Ishida, I believe we had some testimony, besides, the 1980 census probably would be available in April of '82. MR. ISHIDA: Right. We were not informed at that time that it was statutorily . mandated that the report will be ready by April of 1981. We weren ' t informed of that at that time and now that we have thatinformation does that--I don ' t want to place the reapportionment committee in the position where we say that they .have to reapportion in ' 81 or ' 82 and then find out that the census report isn ' t ready. MR. ODA: That ' s why we made 1983 the reapportion- ment year. MR. ISHIDA: Right. MR. ODA: To provide them with adequate leeway-- cushion time. MR. ISHIDA: My question is, in 1970 before the census was there a statutory provision? Was it statutorily mandated that the report should have been published by, say, April of 1971? MR. ODA: I don ' t know. MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t know, you see, because if there was no such mandate then I would think in view of a mandate for the report to be published by 1981, then we will have information by April of 1981. Maybe the reapportionment committee should meet earlier. MR. ODA: I thought we discussed that already. MR. ISHIDA: We discussed it but we did not have the information before us that there is a statutory provision now requiring that the 1980 census be published by April of 1981. We were informed ; that since the last census came out in April , I think it was, of 1972. We just assumed that it would occur at the same time. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Ishida, is there anything wrong with 1983 or do you think perhaps we could do it sooner? MR. ISHIDA: Well , I think that if the information is sooner, I think it is only proper that the reapportionment commission could do it sooner. If it is not, then of course, they can ' t do it. MR. TRULSON : I think by giving it €1-,gear 1983, although you say that it is mandated now that it shall come out by 1971 , maybe 1991 it won ' t be that way. If we say 1983 and every tenth year we should be okay if the census is every ten years. If it ' s going to be 1980 , it ' s going to be 1990 and the year 2000. 1983 is giving enough leeway to make sure that it is in. -17- MR. OMONAKA: I see what you are getting at. There is a possibility then to have the 1982 election under the reapportionment. MR. ISHIDA: Right. MR. ODA: Let ' s assume you get it in April of 1981 . The commission is constituted in February. Or, even you can make it in April. But, supposing there is a delay in there until September or October? I haven ' t counted the number of days, the total , they will have. But, from the day they convene, basically, it ' s about what, 8 months? From February 1 to September 30. It ' s 8 months that the commission has time to meet and let ' s say, it ' s April, so that' s if they convene on April 1 , assuming they have the information, they they will have up to the rest of the year, December 31 , assuming everything goes according to plan to do their work. Right, 8 months? That 's assuming they have the information on time, so, by January 1 , 1982 they should have, assuming no hitches , the reapportionment plan. Now, the nominations and all that sort of thing, I under- stand, sometime in the summer they close filing for seats and that kind of thing. We are talking about at the mostif.-everything goes okay, a possible 6 months, safety period , so to speak. So, maybe this thing can be worded in such a way if they can do it. If they cannot, it goes on to the next election as an option. MR. ISHIDA: Let me ask you one question. In view of the fact that we have this additional information of this 1980 census mandated to be published in April of 1981 , can we still delay it until 1983 as written now in our proposal? MR. ODA: I think based on timetable problems, we can. MR. ISHIDA: That ' s all I want to know. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Oda, you feel that this 1983. . .the length of time is really a good cushion in this case MR. ODA: I do. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you feel that is one of the reasons. . . . MR. ODA: Yes. First of all , I 'm not sure. . .. I haven ' t heard of that April, 1981. mandate. There may be one. But , if there is a mandate that it be published, I 'm concerned about whether the commission, itself, can have the actual copies available to work with in April of 198.1. It may be published in Washington , D. C. but before it filters down to this level may be another month, two months, three months and when do we constitute the commission? We certainly can ' t do it in February. They have nothing to do. They can only be convened upon receipt of the census information. So if they. . .I hate to be a pessimist on that but even if they mandate it to publish it, I don ' t think they' ll receive it in hand to really look at in April. That ' s my concern. -18- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Maybe that 1983 should still hold then. MR. OMONAKA: Question on the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone understand the intent of the motion? To change subsection (g) of Section 3-3 . . .the words the commission may apportion five district council seats to the commission may apportion district council seats, deleting the word "five. " Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Yagong, Omonaka, Sensano, Ishida, Absent - Cadinha Kobayashi , Iwamoto, - 1 Schutte, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. ODA: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman , as I understand it, the State Legislative Reapportionment Commission also will reapportion in 1983 , as I recall. There are a couple of other concerns that I have which haven ' t been clarified. Someone from the audience pointed out. . .if we have three options, I want to be sure the intent on the record is clarified. . .if we have three options, is it the intent of the commission that the option with the plurality of votes shall win? In other words, if you have only 100 votes cast totally throughout the county and you have three options. . .one receives 33 , one receives 33, and the other receives 34. The one with 34 votes prevails as the charter provision? Is that correct? MR. SCHUTTE: That ' s correct. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would say that would be our intent. MR. OMONAKA: That ' s my intent also. MR. ISHIDA: Unless--Mr. Chairman, I have a question to counsel. My question is if that is accepted, is that valid? I really have a question in my mind whether we can do that. Can the fact of plurality, can we say the plurality will control? MR. ODA: I don ' t know of any law that says you have to have. . .I know there is a section in the election laws regarding candidates for office, but there is nothing regarding . . .candidates for office must have a majority of the votes but there is nothing in the law that I could find that has to do with any questions that are presented to the electorate and how they are to be considered to prevail or not prevail. The election laws are just void of the whole thing, so far as I know, anyway. We did check it out. So, I wanted to be sure there is something on the record, here, to reflect the intent of the commission should there be any question raised later on. I don ' t know, Mr. Ishida, as far as. . .I think they are valid. . . -19- MR. ISH;IDA: Can we get an opinion on that? Because at least we should have some justification for doing that, you know, one way or the other. MR. ODA: I can ' t refer to any statute, case, court case, or anything to say that, but I 'm just giving you a common sense approach. If we have three candidates running and we have one office available, the highest number of votes received by one candidate wins and the same principle I would apply. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. This is my thinking, but, if we have three propositions and let ' s say, proposition #1 has 33 votes and #2 has 33, and #3 has 34, you don ' t compare the three, you only compare one against three and two against three. That ' s the way I would look at it. MR. ODA: In terms of who wins you would go by the total number of votes, right? MR. SENSANO: Right because they only have one choice now. It ' s one of the three and each person who is voting is voting only for one. MR. ODA: That ' s right. He ' s not voting three times, only once. MR. SENSANO: He ' s not voting for two choices either so when you compare the results, you compare the highest with the option 1, or 2, not with 2, 3 against. . . MR. ODA: Whichever option receives the highest number of votes, regardless. . . MR. SENSANO: That ' s the way I understand it. Otherwise, how can you decide? MR. ODA: I just wanted to make that to be part of the record because I think the question was a good one. The other question I had is the. . .in case option 2 is selected by the voters being 3,. 2, 2, 2 for the 9 seats, 9 councilmen , right? From 4 House Representative Districts. Is the reapportionment commission going to draw lines for 9 seats or only for the existing 5 or 4 House seats? MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman, may I answer that? MR. ODA: Again, for the record, I want to be absolutely clear as to what the intent is. MR. SCHUTTE : I believe my intent on this when I referred back to Section, subsection (g) , I believe-. this language here gives the reapportionment commission that opportunity if there are. . .the voters do accept the 9 member council , that what we have voted on allows them to redistrict, or rather, reapportion the districts, the council districts, if there be 9, then so be it. -20- MR. ODA: Nine districts? MR. SCHUTTE: Yes. I believe the wording, the language now gives them that opportunity. MR. ODA: Well, it ' s a little confusing right now because it says the commission may apportion the district council seats. Now, districts as used in the reapportionment Section 3-3 are the House Representative Districts, you see, so . . . MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. It is my under- standing under option #2, that what we were in fact to approve was a 9 single member district with an interim provision. Consequently, the reapportionment would be a 9 single member district. This was my understanding when you took the vote. MR. SCHUTTE : That ' s correct. MR. ODA: Then perhaps subsection (g) . . .I don ' t know the wording. . .I 'm looking at it. . .perhaps the word "district" in that provision might be misleading. Because the interim proposal is still pegged to House Representative Districts. Let' s say if you took out the word five district. . .the commission may apportion the council seats among. . . MR. ISHIDA: The interim provision would be effective until the reapportionment. MR. OMONAKA: The reapportionment of separate 9 council districts. MR. ODA: That provision has to be worked on a little bit to kind of give it two separate possibilities. MR. SCHUTTE : Stuart, are you asking that you be given the time to reword this? MR. ODA: I would like that. I certainly can ' t do it right on the spot, right now, it ' s too important a provision. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that legal counsel be given the opportunity to check the language on this subsection (g) . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: All those in favor of giving legal counsel this opportunity to check the language, aye? All ayes. Carried. MR. ODA: Those are the two concerns that I had. MR. SCHUTTE : Mr. Chairman. That ' s looking at the intent of the 9 districts. Mr. Chairman. May I bring something else up for a discussion? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Schutte? -21- MR. SCHUTTE: May I bring something else up for consideration? I speak in regards to Chapter 2, Corporation Counsel. In looking at the language here and talking with legal counsel , Section 5-2.2 states that corporation counsel shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council , may be removed by the mayor. We were deleting the approval of the councilfor removal . I just want to bring it to the attention of the commission that the new section, subsection (c) of Section 3-8, Organization of the council offices, where we allow the council to hire the necessary staff to provide legal arid research assistance to the council on all matters relating to its deliberations , this is giving the county council the opportunity to hire their own legal counsel. However, in this particular section we limit through language whatever is allowable for this legal counsel to do and one of it is they are subject only to do research, their position is exclusively advisory and consultative and as a result if you take this into consideration what we are saying is that we are limiting this legal counsel for the county council to specifics which are just research and advisory. But, we are saying that the corporation counsel is THE legal representative, the chief legal advisory for the county as a unit. There may be a time that this particular corporation counsel may have to rule, because of his powers and functions, in favor of the county council because he has to legally represent them. But as it states here an appointment and removal is only subject to removal by the mayor without approval of the council. As a result, I believe this would put him in alignment with the mayor and cause an undue burden on him and also that of the council because he could not represent the council effectively if he has the mayor sitting over him. If we revert back to the old language, allowing confirmation on appointment and also removal by the mayor and the council , I believe this would give him a better opportunity to serve both bodies without having to be in conflict and worried about the alignment with the mayor. As a result of this , I have asked the Corporation Counsel to come here and speak on this particular portion. Mr. Chairman , if I may address Mr. Bess. Mr. Bess, what we are Speaking of is this section of the corporation counsel where we have proposed in realigning the appointments and removal that the position of corporation counsel be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, we had limited the removal strictly to the mayor without council. approval . I'm looking at it from a different light now and saying that because the corporation counsel ' s office must represent the county council and the mayor' s office that this could be conflicting. Would you like to relate on that? MR. BESS: Yes, Mr. Schutte, it ' s my position that the charter, as worded, should remain. The reason is, is that we do represent both the council and the mayor under the charter and to assure that the corporation counsel is going to be responsive to both the council and the mayor; to assure that he is not going to be an attorney for the mayor, the idea that the council should approve of any removal of the corporation counsel is necessary. -22- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Bess, as it stands right now, as we have suggested the change, the language here actually aligns you with the mayor and as a result you don ' thave the free hand to handle both sides, is that correct? MR. BESS: I 'm just suggesting that it could very well happen that a corporation counsel knowing that he could be removed solely by the mayor for an unpopular opinion, which might-say, you get a situation where the corporation counsel has to decide one way or the other of one position being in favor of the mayor and the other position being in favor of the council , if he was only to be removed by the mayor it could very well be, depending on the personality who happened to be the corporation counsel , he may go with the mayor, to save his job. MR. SCHUTTE: Thank you, Stephen, .I. have..no further questions. I don ' t know if the other commissioners have some- thing that they_ would like to ask. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Bess, have you had an opportunity to read the provision where we. . .the proposed provision concerning the legal counsel for the county council? MR. BESS: No, I have not. MR. ISHIDA: We have the provision whereby. . . Mr. Chairman , I suggest we have a recess to give Mr. Bess time to read this provision. RECESS: At 5 : 35 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE : At 5 :45 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. MR. BESS: Mr. Chairman. I have had an opportunity to read through Section 3-8(c) . I don ' t find any problem with it. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Bess , my question to you is as the Corporation Counsel, do. you not, in essence, practically speaking, aren ' t the things that you do really administration ' s policies as far as representing. . . MR. BESS: No, I wouldn ' t say that. MR. ISHIDA: When you say you represent the council also. . . MR. BESS: Let me put it this way, the council makes a number of requests of our office for legal opinions. In the sense that they are the ones that are asking for the opinion they are our client and so we would be representing both the administration and the council. • MR. ISHIDA: If this provision is adopted about the separate legal counsel for the county council then you would be free of that responsibility, would you not? MR. BESS: No, I don ' t think so. That ' s something that I wanted to ask the commission about. I 'm a little bit confused by Chapter 2, Section 5-2. 3. What this does is it says we are the chief legal advisor and legal representative over all county agencies and then it deletes the council and all officers. -23- MR. ISHIDA: . . . . MR. BESS: Okay. I 'm just reading from Section 5-2.3 as amended it says. . .Except as specified in Section 3-8 (c) of this charter, the corporation counsel shall be the chief legal advisor. . .okay, let ' s just take that for a minute. When I look at this new section relating to legal counsel for the county council , it makes it very clear that the counsel for the council cannot do anything that would be in conflict with the corporation counsel ' s office. Now, it seems to me that notwithstanding this provision relating to legal counsel for the council that the corporation counsel remain the chief legal advisor for the county, including the county council. So that there is no necessity to delete the council.When you leave the Section 5-2.3 as is, leaving the council in it still reads well with this new provision. I guess I should be the one asking the question. Why is it that the council was deleted from Section 5-2.3? MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bess , I believe Mr. Oda was asked this question and he had an answer for that. MR. ODA: Well , basically, it ' s to be sure that the legal staff of the county council shall be giving the county council legal advice. It was unavoidable in that corporation counsel section to keep the corporation counsel as legal advisor to all county agencies but there is a rule of law that says any other specified provisions in the law shall overrule any general provisions of law. So, because the corporation counsel has to be the legal advisor for all the county, including the county council , in effect, the provision regards to legal staff makes it absolutely clear that the legal staff shall be giving advice to the county council . There might be a situation which none of us can really think of right now, a situation where maybe one of the councilmen might say, hey, I don ' t like your opinion, Mr. Jones, I 'm going to run to the corporation counsel for another opinion. I don 't know whether that can happen but the reverse cannot happen. If there is an opinion of the corporation counsel ' s office in existence then the staff attorney of the county council cannot overrule that. That ' s why we put that in. The reason why we left out the language the county council from the corporation counsel section , basically, is to--under the word agencies the county council is already included, I believe. By leaving the word council in sort of made it a little foggy as to the legal staff provision in the other section. I thought I was making it clear but maybe Mr. Bess is right, maybe it' s making it foggier, I don ' t know. Did you all understand that hazy, foggy explanation? MR. TRULSON : Basically, when it says in here representative of all county agencies, the council is automatically included, right? Without being named. -24- MR. ODA: That ' s part of the rationale that we took out the reference to the council. But we somehow couldn ' t avoid the word "advisory" in two provisions. We just had to put it there. As I was telling Mr. Bess, earlier, with the legal staff if it is created for the county council , I think 99.9% of the legal advice and research that ' s necessary for the council never, never again will probably be seen by the corporation counsel ' s office. Seen in a sense of having to be done by them. There might be a couple of occasions, I don ' t know, that I can think of. Initially, there might be some problems of transitional kind of things where people don ' t really understand their role, you know, that kind of thing. I think once the thing gets going, if it ' s approved. . .and the other .-'thing there is a provision in the legal staff provision that gives the council , I think , some authority to implement it by ordinance so if there is any cloud on it I think they can do it, fix it up by ordinance. At least they should. MR. BESS: Mr. Chairman. I 'd like some explanation on that. Where is ;the provision that talks about the implementation by ordinance?- I see the salaries of the staff is fixed by ordinance but are you refe"rring to this 3-8(c) ? MR. ODA: Oh, I 'm sorry, I thought we had a provision. . .salaries and duties of the staff. But nevertheless in spite of the fact that it is not there the county council always has authority to pass ordinances to carry out the dictates of any charter provision , as I understand it, so. . . right? MR. BESS: Right. I think that clarifies it, M . Chairman, but the only thing is that just so the minutes are complete to help the next corporation counsel, whoever he may be, to go ahead and read the thing right, my concern was that some corporation counsel in the future is going to look at the deletion of "council" and say, what was the intent of the charter commission? Was it to delete council even though the term all agencies would include council. So as long as that ' s clear I 'm satisfied. The other, point is on the first phrase of Section 5-2. 3 I 'm still a little bit confused as to why the commission feels `itis_=necessary to put "except as specified" in Section 3-8(c) of this charter. The corporation counsel shall be the chief legal advisor because it seems to me that there is nothing in 3-8(c) which would indicate that the council ' s legal counsel is the chief legal advisor*, To MR. ODA: the council . MR. BESS: Yes , but he' s the chief legal advisor to the council but still there is a conflict and if an opinion, a formal opinion needs to be rendered which will control. . . MR. ODA: Then your folks ' office would. . . MR. BESS: Then our office would control. -25- MR. ODA: That section says that we cannot have conflicting opinions for two offices. MR. BESS: And although it ' s silent as to which one would control from all of the language taken together our office' s opinion could control. MR. ODA: I would think so. MR. BESS: I think so, too. MR. ODA: You cannot have a subordinate office having superior opinions. MR. BESS: Okay. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further of Mr. Bess , it was just to give him the opportunity to speak on this particular portion. MR. ISHIDA: just one question. Besides rendering opinion to the council, what else .do you do for the council? MR. BESS: We draft ordinances for them. We pretty much have been relieved of the responsibility of drafting resolutions but we do continue to draft resolutions for them once in awhile. Right now there, well, let me put it this way, in the past there has always been a legal counsel from our office here at all council meetings, at all committee meetings. That is no longer the case. The reason for that is that we just have too big of a workload and we have decided to go on an ohcall basis which, apparently, is okay with the council chairman. So, we would be also responsible for responding to any oral requests from the council or with regard to matters of procedure. If there is some question about, you know, how the council should proceed. Under their own rules or Robert ' s Rules. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are there any other questions? MR. BESS: Mr. Chairman. I have a question. I 'm looking at Section 5-2.5 on special counsel and I notice that the counsel has continued the same language that is presently found in the charter. One of the problems that we've had with this provision, there has been some question about when the council has to approve the employment of special counsel does it require prior approval of the council .Do you have to go ahead and ask permission to hire special counsel and get the approval of the council prior to the time he is actually hired? Oneof the problems has been where an employee or officer of the county is accused of some wrongdoi=ng and it ' s not clear whether or not that person really is guilty of the wrongdoing and so the council informally says , listen if he ' s guilty we are not going to take care of him. But if he' s not guilty, don ' t worry, we'll take care of him. But meantime there is a lawsuit going on and as far as specifics go this occurred where we had the problem with the Police Commission being sued by Paul DeSilva for Sunshine Law violation. When special counsel was sought -26- for the Police Commission members the council would not make a decision. Now, as it turned out, it was dismissed and the council went ahead and they approved. But , when they did so our office received a letter from the council saying, listen, we want you to know that what you've done here is in violation of the charter because we think that you ought to allow us to give you prior authorization. Our office has interpreted this provision to mean that authorization is necessary but not necessarily prior to the special counsel being hired. Because of the problems we've had with that provision and there are members of the council, right now, who feel differently than our office but perhaps this provision should be improved upon so we don ' t have that problem in the future, or at _least there is a_ clear understanding through the minutes as to what this provision means. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Bess, I have an academic question. You said your office has rendered an opinion on this provision saying you can and the council is not adhering to it? MR. BESS: No. Our opinion has been that special counsel in order to hire special counsel you 've got to get the two-thirds approval. But this two-thirds approval does not necessarily have to occur prior to the _time you enter into a contract with the special counsel. MR. ISHIDA: But you said the county council is disagreeing with you. Is the council disagreeing with you? MR. BESS: I 'm saying that the section lends itself to disagreement and there happen to be" a "couple_ of people who are 'presently on the council who disagree with our opinion. MR. ISHIDA: Since your office rendered your opinion, isn' t it the council ' s position that they must accept that? MR. BESS: Oh, yes. MR. ISHIDA: So, then what ' s the problem there? MR. BESS: Well , the reason why I am bringing this up is that it relates back to what you've done with 5-2.3 and that raises another question in my mind. . .I notice that, okay, you've put in "and officers" in matters relating to their official powers and duties. What does the commission understand that to mean? I guess, Mr. Ishida, the problem is is that increasingly you see suits being filed ;against officials and officers of the county in their individual capacity. There has been no policy established by the council or the county as to what our position should be with respect to defending these people because if the head of public works is accused of paving a parking lot, what do you do, who does Ed Harada go to? Does he turn to our office? And what happens if the council goes and says, corporation counsel , go after this chief engineer, if he has done any wrong that he pay us back. Ed Harada may be hung out to dry. Depending upon whether or not he has friends on the council or not he may not be able to get special counsel. That:';s a real problem and it ' s going to become an increasing problem in -27- the county if what is happening on the mainland in other jurisdictions holds true here because it ' s not just the entity that' s being sued now. MR. ISHIDA: Okay, where are we? MR. BESS: I 'm just presenting the problem, okay, and really rather than even address. . .maybe I shouldn ' t be even addressing it today that perhaps there ought to be a provision in the charter that provides for the tort liability of its officers and employees, that ' s number ( 1 ) . Number ( 2) is the special counsel provision. Our office has ruled that this provision says that no prior authorization is necessary. Is that the way that this commission understands it? MR. ISHIDA: If you asked me my gut reaction, I would have said, no. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Regarding Section 5-2.5 , it appears to me to be very clear as far as the vote is by two-thirds vote of the membership authorizing special counsel. How did it get reversed? It' s almost like it was reversed, they can hire and you authorize it after you do it. MR. BESS: Well , I ' ll tell you. I think the safest position for me to say is that ' s our opinion, we stand on it. There are some real practical problems that have been presented because we have had a number of people who if they took your clear position there would be people who would not be able to have. . .people, say, lay people on a Police Commission would not be entitled to have the services of legal counsel paid for by the county. Because if it ' s a politically sensitive problem, what counsel wants to approve the defense of a Police Commission who has violated the Sunshine Law? And they know how the media feels about the Sunshine Law. So they are not going to give prior authorization. MR. ISHIDA: Can ' t that situation be handled by ordinance, clarified by ordinance? MR. BESS: I don ' t think it can be clarified by ordinance. I think that the charter ought to be clear as to how we should handle special counsel. I don ' t think this provision lends itself to a couple ways of looking at it. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Bess, I would like to think that the county council was responsible for appropriating funds for different areas so I don ' t think any department can just go ahead and say, hey, we want this and we are going to authorize payment for this project or this counsel. I think the concept here is that the county council should appropriate funds for funds for that. That ' s my gut feeling about how the county is set up. -28- MR. BESS: One of the things that protects us is that. . .I forget exactly where it is in the State Statutes but, you know, any person who performs services for the county and does not have a contract, a properly executed contract by the county in accordance with the charter, is not entitled to payment. That, I think, is very clear. I don ' t know if Mr. Oda is familiar with that or not. Are you familiar with that? No? MR. SCHUTTE: Steve, would this be the same situation where we had Mr. Oda working for us prior to this contract being authorized by the county council? MR. ODA: I 'm not necessarily in support of Mr. Bess ° statement but having been in •the office at one time and having it frequently arise where you need the services immediately and unless you want to hold off the agency' s activities until such time the county council approves. My involvement is one good example of that. It took a month, two months. My contract was approved, signed and dated April 12, I think, 1979 and I got involved, I believe, in February. February 23 was my first appearance because of necessity. So, you know, the contract was retroactively worded to reflect services since that date but supposing the council did not approve it? From February 23 up to the date that they disapproved I would have had to have served without payment, really. We all assume that it ' s going through but the county council takes the position that we didn' t give prior approval. From the practical standpoint, it does create a problem. Not only for his office but for agencies that may need legal services immediately. Obviously, in this situation, their office for one reason or another could not serve as legal advisor so you have these peculiar situations, you know. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Bess, what kind of language do you suggest? Don ' t only give us a problem, give us the solution. MR. BESS: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schutte, with the commission ' s permission,' what I would like to do is sit on it and come back next Tuesday. Thereissome question in my mind about first of all , the kind of language that should be added and the second thing is maybe we should leave the language this way and insist that the. . .well, let me sit on it for a week if I could. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Begging the commission ' s pardon, all I wanted to do was just change a few words here but anyway And I think the words that need to be changed would be in Section 5-2. 2 where it states confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor. Instead. of deleting with the approval of the council , I move that this portion with the approval of the council , be maintained. MRS. IWAMOTO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 5-2.2 corporation counsel shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and removed by the mayor. . .the words, with approval of the council, which were deleted be maintained. -29- It should read. . .the corporation counsel shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor with the approval of the council. MR. SCHUTTE: That ' s correct. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on this? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everyone know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Schutte, Iwamoto, Noes - Ishida - 1 Kobayashi, Sensano, Omonaka, Yagong, Absent - Cadinha Trulson, Yanaga, - 1 Sakata - 9 Carried. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oda, do we have time to wait one more week for a revision of this? Or will the minutes show the intent of the commission? MR. ODA: Let ' s see, next week would be the 24th. I don ' t know. I think I 'm not sure, but I think we can but today would probably be the last day that any amendments can be made. Otherwise we would have a clerical problem in preparing this. MR. TRULSON : If you feel we have the time, I would suggest. . .I would recommend that we let Mr. Bess come back as he has requested. Mr. Bess has requested to come back next week if you feel that we have the time. My question was with what he has said and discussion tonight perhaps the intent of what we want to do here will be clear. So if he wrote another opinion, maybe it would be different. MR. ODA: We have another provision we have to work on anyway. Subsection (g) has to be approved next week. MR. OMONAKA: Other than those everything else in on deck already? MR. ODA: Right. I 'd like to go over &ertain other housekeeping things with you folks today if possible so that I can get it programmed for typing with respect to everything except the two provisions that would still be acted upon next week. MR. OMONAKA: So what you are suggesting at this point is to go over all the documents that you've handed out and go over it entirely. . . -30- MR. ODA: Rather than go over it page by page I 'm assuming that all of you have read it and maybe some general comments can be made with regard to anything that any of you may have seen on it. . . MR. TRULSON: You're speaking about the stuff you handed out last week, right? MR. ODA: Right, this compilation. MR. TRULSON: Then, Mr. Chairman, why don 't we break for dinner and come back and begin our work again. RECESS : At 6 : 20 p.m. the Chair called for a dinner recess. RECONVENE: At 8: 35 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. MR. ODA: Why don ' t I explain what' s involved in it .and= itthere are any further questions we can answer it. The first replacement page has to do with 3-13 and we can refer to that. Article III, 3-13. New Section 13. We had some discussions regarding emergency appropriations with comparison between that and the, I think it was 10-8 or something I recall. If you refer to 3-13 regarding emergency appropriations, emergency ordinances, we added two provisions there. One, of course, emergency appropriations may be made pursuant to section 10-8 regarding the financial procedures. The next paragraph, the affirmative"vote of all council members present or by two- thirds of the entire membership shall be necessary for adoption of such ordinances. I think that ' s in to last week ' s discussion. Any questions on those? We move on to the next replacement page which had to do with 3-18. New Section 3-18 regarding mandatory program review which was the Sunset provision, I believe. Mandatory Program Review-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 be terminated. The council shall adopt procedures and details to implement this section. The next one, Article XIV, New Section 9-8 on the second page of that. . .actually, 9-9, just above that.. The paragraph above 9-9. The first sentence of the first paragraph above Section 9-9 which is part of 9-8, top of the page. . .To meet a public emergency affecting life, health or property, the council , deleting upon written request by the mayor, may make emergency appropriations. That ' s basically in conformity with the previous section on 3-13. MR. TRULSON: Excuse me, are you talking about Article XIV? -31- MR. ODA: Article XIV, right. New Article XIV.9-8, paragraph 2 which is the replacement page. We took out upon written request by the mayor to leave it up to the county council in conformity with Section 3-13. I think, as we discussed this last week, since the county council has the initial authority to adopt all emergency appropriations and ordinances, it was felt that there was no need to get a"written request by the mayor. It might be a little difficult if the mayor happened to be out of town as well. ARTICLE XII: Article XII, if you will all refer to Article XII, which are the general provisions. The underscored subsection ( f) refers to the definition of "vacancy', which was previously discussed. MR. OMONAKA: Then the other Article XII, Special assessment is out? MR. ODA: Right, we deleted that. And under Boards and Commissions on the next page, we added the phrasea. except as otherwise provided in this charter referring to, of course, the charter commission and the reapportionment commission. And, of course, subsection (b) makes reference to appointment by the mayor, confirmation by the council. On the next page, subsection (k) , top of the page. . .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. That, of course, was previously discussed and was inserted under the boards and commissions provision. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, may I make this suggestion , that you combine last week ' s with this week ' s handout it makes the whole charter, right? ARTICLE XIII : MR. ODA: Right. Article XIII , Code of Ethics. Oh, yes, if you will look at subsection (c) we are deleting subsection (c) which is the provision regarding disclosing confidential information gained by reason of his official position or use such information for the personal gain or benefit of himself or anyone else. Based on Judge Doi ' s decision that that was unconstitutional and we renumbered the rest of the provisions. ARTICLE XIV: Article XIV, Charter amendment or revision. We added, of course, the provision regarding printing one' s name and address , social security number on the application and changed the time in which the county clerk can complete his examination to 20 days. And the bottom regarding 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, the mayor with the confirmation of the -32- council, shall appoint a charter commission. . .The fifteenth day of January provision was added in there because there really was no specific date in the present 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. ..We added that in to let it conform to many of the commission provisions in other sections because that provision also is not in the present charter. Of course, the rest of the language. . .the commission shall hold at least one public hearing in each of the geographical areas. . .and below that you will see. . .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. Trulson had raised the question on that particular portion as to whether it could be interpreted that the special election could be held at a time other than the year in which the charter commission meets. Theoretically, I suppose, it could be so interpreted. But I don ' t think it makes that much sense if you read it that way but certainly that point depending on your interpretation may be well taken. Bud, am I correct in what you said? MR. TRULSON: Right. What I was saying is that I believe now the records of the commission will show our intent. The way it looked was that they may set the date for the election or the first election year. I think in other words maybe they could set the year after but I think the intent is clear. I wasn ' t questioning it, I was just coming up with the question of interpretation. I think the intent is clear from our minutes that we feel that it ; , . would be the year the charter meets or not later than the next election. MR. ODA: Right. And, on the bottom, of course, Members of the commission shall hold office until the amendments or charter is ratified or rejected. That provision, we pulled out of one of the other county provisions, either Honolulu or Maui and-If a majority of the voters voting upon a charter amendment votes in favor of it 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. I just wonder whether this particular provision might cover the concern regarding multiple choices. Richard, do you think this provision is good enough? The plurality of votes concern? There might be an interpretation as to the difference of the meaning of the word plurality and majority. As I see it, plurality means one more vote, or, you know, just more votes than another person and majority means more than half. . .or more than the other guy, more than 50%, or whatever it is. It can be an interpretation problem there. You see any problem with that, Richard? -33- MR. ISHIDA: As it is written here? MR. ODA: Yes. MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t see any problem. . . . . MR. ODA: . . .you see, if you have three choices the example that I put up, 33 , 33. and 34, would the provision that got 34 votes be, in fact, 'a majority: It ' s a plurality, right? But not the majority. MR. ISHIDA: Yes. MR. ODA: That ' s the. . .do you see what I am driving at? Again, this particular provision was lifted from another charter provision from another county because someone had stated that there was nothing in the charter that says who is going to win or which provision prevails. We all assume that if you have a majority of votes that amendment prevails. But we cannot go on assumptions too often. MR. TRULSON: Do you state that the definition of majority MR. ODA: Well , it could be debatable in that situation when you have three choices, right? What is the majority? You have 100 votes, if you win on 34, is that a majority? MR. ISHIDA: Wouldn ' t a majority by definition mean more than half? MR. ODA: That ' s my normal understanding of what majority means. Over half. So if option 3 receives 34 votes out of 100, that ' s 34%. Certainly not 51%. So you see the interpretation problems we run into? MR. SCHUTTE : Do you feel there should be a section where you could put in the word "plurality"? MR. ODA: With the majority of the voters voting on a charter amendment, you have one charter amendment, even if you have three options, there is one charter amendment involved. So if more voters vote for that particular amendment it still could be interpreted as a majority. MR. OMONAKA: What if you delete the word "majority"? MR. ODA: Delete the word "majority"? You mean that whole paragraph? MR. TRULSON: What about voters voting upon a . . . .vote in favor of it? MR. ODA: voting in favor of it doesn 't necessarily mean that it prevails. The 33 guys who vote for the other options are voting in favor of their options. -34- MR. TRULSON: Why don ' t we just delete the paragraph? MR. ODA: Kill the patient because we can ' t cure the disease, right? I don ' t know, maybe that ' s the answer. MR. SCHUTTE: Akira, are you suggesting some- thing like the rule of plurality shall prevail? Do you suggest any. . . MR. ODA: I 'm just kicking this out, now. Suppose we substitute the word "plurality" of the voters vote in favor of the amendment in place of the word "majority"? MR. ISHIDA: Again , I have a problem whether we can do that. Can you take my right away by less than a majority, less than half? That ' s what you would be doing in this amendment to the charter. MR. ODA: All:right, suppose we left it like that , Richard, on the three amendments, three proposal provision, there might be an interpretation problem. MR. ISHIDA: The ballot I can see would develop into a two pronged situation like the City and County of Honolulu. We can put one provision. The first question. . .are you in favor of retaining the presentform of representation? Yes or No. Okay? If no, pick the next choices, one or two. Then we would not get into a plurality type of situation. I don ' t think we want to do that and we can get away from it by how we present it. . . MR. ODA: And that ' s the only provision that would be affected by it. MR. SCHUTTE: What is that? MR. ODA: Section 3-2. If we do it the way the sample, like the Honolulu one for the November 7, 1972. They have one general question. . .Shall the revised charter of the City and County of Honolulu be adopted? Yes or No. If they say,yes, I take option #1 , or #2. Majority votes, right? If they say, no, you don ' t even go to- the options. I 'm not saying the wording is going to be exactly but. . . MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. What would happen to a ballot that says yes but fails to vote the second part of that question? If he says I am in favor of changing and doesn ' t follow up and select either #1 , or #2 in the next question, then , what happens? MR. ODA: If they don ' t do that? MR. SENSANO: Yes. MR. ODA: It ' s not counted. As far as the options there is no vote on it but there will be a vote on the general amendment. -35- MR. SENSANO: Yes, but if they don ' t select, that ballot would be null and void, right? MR. ODA: I wonder. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It looks as though the way this ballot is made out isn ' t very clear. MR. ODA: Yes, I 'm not saying the wording is what we should follow but the concept, as Richard said , would avoid the three---once you get three choices, it creates a problem. So, maybe we can work on the ballot to prevent the word "majority" from becoming a problem. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. If a voter says, yes, I 'm in favor of an amendment and does not select an amendment that particular ballot will neither count for either choice #1, or choice #2. MR. ODA: I think you' re right, Mr, Sensano. Would that be okay with the commission that we leave the wording as it is and we work the ballot design and wording to avoid an interpretation of the word "majority" coming into the picture? ARTICLE XV: Now, Article XV with regard to. . .after its ratification by the electorate, this charter, as amended. . .becomes effective January 1 , 1980. I don ' t understand why they had=_.twelve o'clock meridian , January 2, before. Akira, do you know whyz-they used January 2? MR. OMONAKA: Because January 1 is a holiday. MR. ODA: But legally, let ' s say, if. . . MR. OMONAKA: It ' s not a working day, usually, so. . . MR. ODA: Yes, I understand that. And the initial election under this charter, we changed it from. . .to 1980. Under the Status of Agencies and Transfer of Functions we took out the terms of office of incumbent and said just members of the various boards and commissions, excluding the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency, holding office at the effective date of this charter shall continue in office unless they resign or until their terms of office shall expire, at which time new members shall be appointed. . . just a redefining of roles. The Public Works Board of Appeals and the Board of Appeals under the Planning Department shall stand abolished and their functions transferred to the extent provided in Section 5-7.3 which is the new Board of Appeals created consolidating the two functions. -36- The entire section with regard to 16-12 was removed regarding salaries of the elective officials. As well as 16-13, Existing County Seal. Section 16-5 , Temporary Budget and Capital Program. That has been deleted. Sections redesignated, renumbered. With that, Mr. Chairman, that just about completes the entire revision process except for those two sections that would have to be worked on for next week. The one regarding special counsel and subsection (g) of Section 3-3 on reapportionment. MR. TRULSON: Including the 9 member council. MR. ODA: Right. Regarding the 9 member council , do you all want a draft of that provision for next week? We won ' t redo this particular page, right now, because it ' s merely for publication purposes and we' ll just add it as an option to Section 3-2. So, all we ' ll present next week is a separate sheet for the optional provision, okay? Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe a motion of some sort would be in order for the items we just discussed. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Before there is a motion, I would like to bring up something for the commission to consider, in light that we did suspend the rules. This is in regards to the Committee on the Status of Women ' s second plea to include something for equal employment opportunity in the charter. As easily as we can make the change, it consists of two words that would be added to Article VII, Department of Civil Service. ARTICLE VII : Article VII , Section 7-1.4. The second sentence which begins The major duties shall be in the areas of. . .and I would like for the words equal employment to be added there. I think the communication we received this session plus the two other communications we received from the Committee:, on the Status of Women, they just want two words and I think if we can just add that at this time it would satisfy their cause. MR. SCHUTTE : Gloria, where is this? MRS. KOBAYASHI : The major duties. . .under. the Department of Civil Service. . .The major duties shall be in the areas of. . .equal employment. . .then you would read. . . personnel development, personnel deployment, personnnel relations and personnel welfare for maximum employee effective- ness. So, it' s the addition of equal employment. MR. SCHUTTE: Under what section is that? 7-1.4. MRS. KOBAYASHI : They would like to add some other words but I don 't know if you would consider that also. I think we did consider the addition at the end of the sentence, for all regardless of age, r-ace,, rel.i-cion or politics. .and I on ' t know if you want to go that far. -37- The major duties shall be in the areas of equal employment, personnel development, personnel deployment, personnel relations and personnel welfare for all regardless of age, race, sex, religion or politics. ®.for -maximum employee effectiveness. MR. SCHUTTE: Okay, how is it going to read now, Gloria? MRS. KOBAYASHI : If you don ' t mind adding all those words, it would read as follows: The major duties shall be in the areas of equal employment, personnel development, personnel deployment, personnel relations and personnel welfare, all regardless of age, race, sex, religion or politics for maximum employee effectiveness. And if you think it ' s appropriate at this time, I move that this. . . MR. ODA: I 'm sorry, Gloria, could you go slower. . .all regardless of what? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Would you like me to read. . . all regardlessof age, race, sex, religion or politics , for maximum employee effectiveness. MR. OMONAKA: Gloria, I think the law also provides for the origin and all those things. So there are enough laws in the books covering things like this so I think it would be redundant to have them in the charter. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Well , I did explain to the ladies that that was some of the consensus of the commission but I think they really strongly feel that they would like at least the words "equal opportunity" in the charter. And they have at this time. . .we did get a communication from them saying that they would be willing to help us sell the charter. Based on those things plus the fact that we did get the Women' s Center as well as the AAUW . . . And it isn ' t like it is something so hard to write in. MR. ISHIDA: I ' ll second the motion. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I didn ' t make the motion yet. MR. ISHIDA: Oh, you didn ' t make it yet. MRS. KOBAYASHI : They keep interruptingme. Akira, would just the words "equal employment". . .would you go for that? MRS. IWAMOTO: Mr. Oda had talked to us some time ago regarding this and he did mention that this was considered a law but Gloria has been mentioning about how the women have been concerned about equal employment information in the charter. So maybe even the words "equal employment" might satisfy them and we could leave out the other part. -38- MR. SENSANO: I think maybe "equal employment" if we can fit it in someplace would be more acceptable because if you mention age, there are certain jobs that minors cannot hold, you know. You don ' t allow minors to work With heavy machinery. So, maybe we can insert some . words like full employment or equal employment. I think that would be enough. MR. ODA: You know, the words "equal employment" in and of themselves, I don 't think is -S'.=tzff,i cient._ Equal employment in respect to what? Quantity? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I move that we add the words "equal employment opportunity" then after the major duties shall be in the areas of equal employment oppor- tunity, ._and forget the rest about the age and race. I think the concern of the women was that there is. . .that they wanted the words. . .some kind of. . .equal employ- ment opportunity written somewhere in the charter. They have suggested the Department of Civil Service because they feel that it ' s the Civil Service Director' s responsibility. He has told them that unless he finds he has given them the impression that if it ' s in the charter, it will give them more clout. So I move that this be added. . . MR. SCHUTTE : Oh. Stuart, is this satisfactory? The wording of it? I ' ll second Gloria' s motion. MR. TRULSON : Question. CHAIRMAN. SAKATA: Any other discussion on this? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Gloria, if you look at the Preamble, don ' t you think this should suffice in terms of. . . ? MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. As I read that sentence in its entirety. . .The major duties shall be in the areas of equal employment opportunity, personnel development , personnel deploy- ment , personnel relations and personnel welfare, for maximum employee effectiveness. . .I wonder whether the phrase. . .for maximum employee effectiveness. . .is what everything before that seem to be aiming at. Perhaps we should delete the words. . .maximum employee effectiveness. The major duties shall be in the areas of equal employment opportunity. . .you don ' t have equal employment opportunities for maximum employee effectiveness. See what I mean? Neither do you have personnel deployment for, necessarily, maximum employee. . .or personnel relations for maximum employee effectiveness. I don ' t know, maybe I 'm being over technical. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I so amend my motion to delete the words. . .for maximum employee effectiveness. MR. SCHUTTE : Gloria, you ' re amending your motion to delete that? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Yes. -39- MR. SCHUTTE : I second it. MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that on Section 7-1.4 we insert the words underlined. . .The major duties shall be in the areas of equal employment oppor- tuni_ty. . .opportunity or opportunities?. . . MR. , SCHUTTE : Plural. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Opportunities, right. . .personnel development , personnel deployments personnel relations and personnel welfare. Delete that /for maximum employee effective- ness%. Is that it? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Yagong, Omonaka, Sensano, Schutte, Absent - Cadinha Iwamoto, Kobayashi , - 1 Ishida, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. TRULSON: I move that we accept_ this ( amendments) as presented with the exception Of those as notified by counsel which will be given to us next week. MR. SCHUTTE : I second that motion. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. On the exception, are you talking just strictly on this Corporation Counsel article? MR. TRULSON: The exception? MR. ISHIDA: Yes. MR. TRULSON: No, there are other. . .there is one other, I think , subsection (g ) of reapportionment. MR. ISHIDA: Because I have to draft a provision that will affect Corporation Counsel as_ far as determination because of this new approval today. MR. TRULSON: There are three exceptions, I think, that Mr. Oda has outlined with regards to the. . . MR. ISHIDA: As long as I 'm not excluded from the question on that. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Under Article III , 3-5 , is: _that , sahary-commission makeup language satisfactory in view of what ' s happened?. . .six of whom shall be representatives of the county geographical areas of Puna, Ka'u, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua and Hilo, and three of whom shall be representative of the county-at-large. -40- MR. ODA: I don ' t think, Mr. Omonaka, that there is any problem with that, for the simple reason that it doesn ' t deal with any legislative kind of matters. MR. OMONAKA: Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do all of you know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Kobayashi , Iwamoto, Noes - None Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Yagong, Absent - Cadinha Yanaga, Trulson, - 1 Ishida, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. just to inform the commission a little bit as to what will be necessary in the near future, I would like to have some kind of. . .well , the commission ' s approval to proceed, subject to next week ' s,of course, changes , with the. . .first of all , in the preparation of a newspaper supplement in the nature of something similar to this. This has 16 pages. Not necessarily 16, maybe 18, maybe 14, I don ' t know, but similar to the one that Maui had back in 1976. In this particular handout which was printed in the Maui News prior to the special election or the general election, the amendments were printed in boldface type. The entire charter was printed, word for word. The deletions, the provisions to be deleted were not even included. Only the so-called amend- mended charter as it was to be amended was prepared for publication. Not the way it is in the way I presented it to you. The brackets deleting the provisions. Primarily, because to the average lay person a bracketed provision to be omitted and with the underlined provision in boldface type, it ' s going to be awfully confusing. So, I 'm asking the commission ' s permission to proceed in the manner as did take place on Maui in the Maui Charter Commission Review process to omit from the printing in the supplement the deletions from the charter to simplify the understanding of it for the average voter and to put all the amendments in boldface type. The original provisions that are to remain unchanged to be in lightface. We also would like to have the mug shots of all of you to be included on the supplement. I understand that Larry Kadooka on the Tribune-Herald will be assisting in the taking of photographs for all of you to be included in the supplement. I hope you all agree to that. MR. SCHUTTE : Excuse me. We had discussed last week in relation to the language where you have a grammar correction and stuff like that. Are you going to list that separately on the ballot, or how are you going to do that? MR. ODA: Can you hold off on that for a second? MR. SCHUTTE : Yes. -41- MR. ODA: Let me finish this supplement first. And, of course, there is an introductory provision that gives some highlights of the charter amendments in non-technical words with photographs of the county, the county buildings, signed by all members of the commission. There is a map of the island. A sample ballot. Pre-prepared for dissemination. As I understand it, we made a preliminary check of costs , Frances, do you want to tell them about that? Okay. There are 19 ,000 newspapers circulated every Sunday by the Hawaii Tribune-Herald on this island. For 19,000 copies of the supplement it :will cost roughly $4, 279. That ' s just for one Sunday supplement, approximately 16 pages, this size. MR. SCHUTTE: One Sunday supplement? MR. ODA: That' s right. $4, 279.30. Now, in addition to the English version. . MR. TRULSON: Excuse me, Mr. Oda, that ' s just the Hilo paps What about West Hawaii Today? MR. ODA: That ' s not included in that cost. I don ' t know whether the inserts would be included in that. Only Tribune-Herald. If it ' s going to be included as a supplement to the West Hawaii Today do they have a Sunday edition? Tuesday, Thursday. . .I don ' t know. It' s up to the commission if you want it to be included in the West Hawaii Today. MR. SCHUTTE: It would just be this one time? MR. ODA: Right. These copies will be available at the voting booths as well. It says. . .the commission shall publish not less than 45 days before any election, at least once in a daily newspaper of general circulation within the county, a brief digest of the amendments to the charter. . .a notice to the electorate. MR. SENSANO: The Tribune-Herald is only aI6 day newspaper. It doesn ' t publish on Saturday. MR. ODA: That ' s right. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I think if our aim is to try to get to the voters this information, I think we should consider. . .is it within the power of the commission to make a change in the charter provision regarding publication? MR. ODA: I don ' t see any problem, Mr. Sensano, in putting this in the West Hawaii Today as a supplement to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald. It ' s just an extra cost item. I don ' t mean in substitution of the Tribune- Herald, now. I mean in addition to the Tribune- Herald. -42- MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, do you have any figures on that? Putting it in there? MR. ODA: I don ' t know. We' ll have to find out but I assume maybe another $1,000. MR. SCHUTTE: So we are looking at maybe $5 ,000? MR. ODA: Easy, I think . At least $5 , 000. But, I 'm not finished yet. We have to print according to federal law, the same thing in Japanese, copies of which I have. And in Ilocano, which I have. We have to print 3 ,000 copies of the Japanese version and 1,000 of the Ilocano. MR. SCHUTTE: 3 ,000 of the Japanese? MRS. KOBAYASHI : How did you get the figures? MR. ODA: Through Mr. Arakaki . And 1 ,000 of the MR. SCHUTTE : Do you have those figures, there? MR. ODA: No, it would be in proportion, I 'd say. I would say it ' s roughly, what, 25 per copy, on the average. 25-30q per supplement. So we are having another 4,000 in Japanese and Ilocano. So we are talking about another $1 ,000. MR. TRULSON: That ' s just the cost of the supplement, isn ' t it? The supplement that goes into the newspaper? That ' s not the ones that go to the voting booth? MR. SCHUTTE : So 1,000 in the Japanese paper and 1 ,000 in the Ilocano. MR. ODA: No, 3 , 000 Japanese edition and 1 ,000 Ilocano. I 'm just guessing at the price of at least $1, 000. The voting booth copies would be. . .we' ll need a number of thousand of copies. I don ' t know how many thousand we' ll need but at least I would say, 1 ,000 copies. But the cost of that would be probably minimal according to. . .because it ' s a gross volume. MR. SCHUTTE : And that would require all of the same. . .the Ilocano and the Japanese. . . MR. ODA: The Ilocano ones and the Japanese ones are primarily for voting booth information. Not for general distribution in the newspaper. It ' s only for the voting booths. MR. TRULSON: I would like to move that we allow counsel to proceed as requested with the supplements. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. -43- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we give legal counsel the permission he requests as to the supplement;,, to the newspaper. Any other discussion? MR. SENSANO: Question on the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you all understand the intent of the motion? Ayes - Ishida, Kobayashi , Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Cadinha Yagong, Trulson , - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. SCHUTTE : Stuart, are we talking about $5 ,000 or $5 , 200 for just the printing? MR. ODA: I would say, if you look at $6,000, you would probably be safe. $6,000 dollars. MR. SCHUTTE : If you want to give me some idea then I could see what we have in the budget. I 'm quite sure this is covered in the budget, no problem. But if you feel we need to get into West Hawaii also, then I would. . . MR. ODA: I 'm convinced we should put it in the West Hawaii newspaper. There are a lot of people out there, they don ' t really have the Hawaii Tribune-Herald. West Hawaii is probably the only newspaper they read. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does this come under a separate account? Strictly on our account? MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I believe that they don ' t have to print a special issue just for West Hawaii Today, I think they just increase the number of copies by the number required by West Hawaii Today. MRS. IWAMOTO: The Tribune-Herald does all the printing. The Tribune-Herald does the printing for West Hawaii. MR. ODA: I also would like. . .and I assume this is already given to me but. . .for the record, authority to proceed with ballot preparation and coordination with the Clerk ' s office. Does the commission want any input on ballot design? Maybe that ' s the question I should ask. MR. SCHUTTE : Maybe just one. That it be the least confusing as possible. MR. ODA: The guidelines that I have, generally speaking, is that every provision has to be voted yes or no. -44- MR. SCHUTTE : What I 'm talking about is if you start relating to the points of law on the ballot itself and start indicating the actual amendments and things on there, people don 't understand that legal language. But if you were to put it out in layman ' s language very distinct and to the point. That gets across a lot better and they can also refer to the supplement. If you start quoting the other stuff on that. . .they're not interested in sections, that doesn ' t mean a thing to them. MR. ODA: Mr. Tamashiro' s suggestions with regard to cutting down on the number of questions, perhaps since we still have to meet then when I come to that point using his suggestion we can consolidate many of the questions and just have the electorate vote on several very major ones. The rest, mostly housekeeping stuff we just say. . .have a general question on that. MR. SCHUTTE : I think the intent is to give the voters the opportunity to vote on each particular change with the exception of the housekeeping items. MR. ODA: Right. The water supply, the county council , you know, that kind of thing. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I so move to allow counsel to prepare the ballot. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that the request of the counsel to have. the right to look into the ballot design be granted. MR. SCHUTTE : Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does everybody know the intent of the motion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson, Noes - None Yagong, Omonaka, Sensano, Schutte, Absent - Cadinha Iwamoto, Kobayashi , - 1 Ishida, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. Can I throw something on the table for discussion? This is the topic of recall . I had a discussion with one of the former charter members. Now, if you go on recall , proceed on recall , we have to have a special election. Where would we find the money? Where is the money coming from to hold this special election? The cost of that might come up. . . $125 ,000 or somewhere around there. Where are we. . .who is going to appropriate the funds for that special election? -45- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yanaga, I would imagine it would be county funds but it ' s quite possible that the chances of recall , the way we have it set would be very slim. The fact that there is going to be 2 year terms is going to make it difficult1to recall. If you take the 6 months he' s got to be in office and by the time everything is done, I doubt very much with districts whether they would have recall. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. A point of order. We have already adopted the draft. I dont know why we should go back and redo the whole thing unless you want to make some amendments. MR. YANAGA: No, I was just bringing it up for discussion. I want to have my own satisfaction because these are the questions posed to me and I couldn ' t answer. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Does the county pay for recall proceedings? MR. ODA: Sure. That ' s understood. Anything like that has to be absorbed by the county. No question about it. MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Stuart a question. If you go through this recall procedure, how long would it take? MR. ODA: I don ' t know, I would have to refer to the section. MR. SCHUTTE : The individual has to be in office for at least 6 months before a recall can be started. MR. ODA: What ' s the provision on that? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Article XI , Section 11-1. 1. MR. TRULSON: Isn ' t it possible it may be a year and a half by the time it ' s initiated and actually voted on? MR. ODA: It ' s probably about 4 or 5 months from the time it ' s initiated. It says. . .Any such election shall be held not less than sixty nor _more than ninety days after the petition has been presented to the council , at the same time as any other special election held within such period, the council shall call a special recall election to be held within the time aforesaid. Now, before the special election there are certain other procedural requirements that are necessary. . . verification of the petitioners names and that kind of thing. If you add the number of days that the procedure requires, I think it will come to 4 or 5 months. -46- MR. TRULSON: The total would be 6 months after they are ',in office, another 4 or 5 months and then the voters have to vote on the recall. . . . MR. ODA: No, no, all within that period. I would say at the outside, 6 months from the time of filing the petition to the election. Assuming that fellow doesn ' t resign. I would have to sit down and count but 4 to 6 months. So we are looking at half a year, at least. It ' s purposely made difficult and lengthy. Something like that is pretty heavy. Whether it ' s good or bad, the idea is to protect a man from being hastily recalled without any procedural rights. He should be given the procedural rights, no matter how people feel emotionally, he has the right to, I think , properly defend himself. MR. YANAGA: The reason I asked that is if you are going to take a year and a half, two years for recall , by that time he would be out. MR. ODA: No, no, as I say, as I see it here it works out about 4 to 6 months. MR. YANAGA: Okay. MR. SCHUTTE : Fish, what you are talking about is the difference between recall and impeachment. . .and why recall if you have impeachment, that section on impeachment. Is that what you' re talking about? MR. ODA: The basic difference is one is a court procedure. The other is not. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I move for adjournment. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Before we move for adjournment is the schedule for next week all right? MR. ISHIDA: What is the schedule for next week? My schedule says Tuesday. • MR. ODA: I 'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I cannot make Tuesday. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We' ll have to go back to Wednesday, again. MR. ODA: I would request the commission ' s approval for Wednesday. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: That would be the 25th. 3 : 30. MR. ODA: Thank you. -47- 3 MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I thought at the start of the meeting that you were asking for someone to represent this commission before some group. I would like to suggest the Chairman represent the body. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Trulson, would you like to go a luncheon at the Omega 10? This would be on the 14th of August. The Exchange Club of Waiakea at 12 noon. Mr. Legaspi is Chairman of the club. It will probably last one hour. Okay? MR. TRULSON: Okay. ADJOURNMENT: At 9 :53 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Next meeting date - Wednesday, July 25 , 1979, 3 : 30 p.m. Hawaii County Councilroom.2-T-li,(�!,�/ Joan Carnett, RECORDING SECRETARY -48-