MIN CHARTER 2019-02-08 (2018-2020)

Home

Hawai`i County Charter Commission -8 February 8, 2019 MS. RICE: So, if someone is saying things, describing something that we would like more information about, how do we get that information if we are not allowed to ask them a question I take it. But it... CHR. ADAMS: In the course of the hearing itself that would be correct, right? I would, you know there has been the conversation about do you allow questions for clarification, part of the question is what is clarification, what becomes dialogue, I think it would be... I think it would take away, my view, is that it would take away from the purpose of the public hearing which is rather than to engage between Commissioners and the public about various views or perspectives on the matter that the public, or the person providing the testimony has provided, it's really our opportunity to hear from the testifier. MS. RICE: Right. I understand. CHR. ADAMS: If there is more information that you are interested in receiving, I assume, I guess we could figure out a way to get that information to the testifier you know, during the meeting. You know. They are not required as I... I believe that what they provide is, they provide their name, but they are not required to provide any contact infonnation necessarily. So, we would, if there was a reason to... for a Commissioner to want to get in touch with somebody, we could. We are not necessarily going to run straight through. I can't imagine that we would run straight through, so there will be opportunities for recess and we have the staff that will be available and so, the simple written word on a note would be another way to manage that. MS. RICE: Okay. Right. I mean I, at this moment I can't think of that but even today 1 had a question which I was not able to ask. CHR. ADAMS: But we know how to get in touch with that person. MS. RICE: Correct. CHR. ADAMS: So, okay. Any other comments? So I guess I would comment on Commissioner Galimba's points. I think, I think that if 1 was going to say an additional period of time, you know up to seven minutes or something, that would be... 1 would be more likely to support something that would be across the board as opposed to the Commission deciding to on an individual basis or case by case basis, do some type of waiving of the time limit situation. Because then where do you stop on that and how... the idea that we are playing favorites and all of those kinds of things, so five minutes was chosen as an amount of time that seemed reasonable, but of course we are open to changing that if there is a consensus from the Commission that we want to make it a little longer, than certainly you are going to be the ones who are going to be sitting there. I don't mean that as a threat. I am just saying you are going to be equally engaged in receiving this feedback as I am. So, are you offering that as a time? It is not an amendment. Page 23