Comm No 0003.02.01 - Ad Hoc Committee Report - Section 3-2 Composition and Terms of Council Members

Home

CHARTER COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON ARTICLE III SECTION 3-2 October 25, 2018 Page 2 of 3 The benefits of a four-year election cycle outweighed the benefits of a two-year election cycle for the majority of the committee: • A four-year election cycle allows the Council member time to focus on the district problems and requirements and make headway in finding solutions to them without the distraction of an upcoming election campaign. • A longer term gives the Council person the opportunity to gain experience and focus on his/her job prior to fund raising and planning a campaign. • For Council members elected for the first time, four years gives that person a better opportunity to learn the parliamentary procedures and to gain a more in depth understanding of the issues facing the County at that time. • A Council person may be more confident in taking a position on a controversial issue if he/she is not facing an election within a short time. • The four-year term allows the Council member to focus on long term problem solving rather than quick fixes which may be short lived and costly. • The four-year term encourages the Council person to plan for the future and envision creative, new improvements to Hawaii County. • A four-year election cycle is half as costly for the candidate as a two-year cycle. • A four-year term lessens the almost constant fund raising and preparation for the election campaign required by a two-year cycle. Notes: Our committee did not attempt to calculate the mathematical formula needed for staggered terms. By having staggered terms the Council will always have Council persons retained who are familiar with the ongoing legislative matters. County of Honolulu has four-year terms with staggered election of those Council members. We did not analyze the staggered election formula used by Honolulu. Determining an appropriate and lawful manner to achieve staggered Council Terms will require a substantial amount of consideration and thought by the Commission and its staff. Appropriate in the sense that the Commission will likely have some policymaking authority to choose between potential methods to implement staggered terms; i.e. the Commission may have options at its disposal. Lawful in the sense that any method the Commission decides to incorporate into its proposal should be scrutinized by legal counsel to ensure it would withstand a legal challenge. Staff has been apprised that the Commission may consider one or more proposals to establish staggered Council terms, and as such will research this issue and provide to the Commission its findings to allow the Commission to determine what it believes to be an appropriate approach to stagger Council terms in a lawful manner. 2