Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0183.044 2020-2022 May 3, 2021 Planning Committee Hawai'i County Council 101 Aupuni St, Ste 3 Hilo HI 96720 Re: Communication 183 c- Aloha Madame Chair and members of the Planning Committee, I am testifying against Communication 183. M, In general, the new procedures put into place to have Commissioner Van Pernis submit questions prior to the meeting worked well during the April 15, 2021 Leeward Planning Commission meeting. I submitted written testimony to the LPC under"Administrative Matters"that made recommendations to help the LPC resolve procedural issues to further assist the LPC as a while. I have provided the text of my testimony to the LPC at the end of this testimony. As I watched the LPC meeting, I continued to observe its struggle with compliance with Robert's Rules of Order and a lack of support from Corporation Counsel. Here are some of the notes I made during the meeting: • A question from a Commissioner about traffic from proposed subdivision was not answered. • A motion to amend was not seconded, but discussion began on the amendment. • Commissioners complained that they were being given documents and information the day before or sometimes the day of meetings. • Corporation Counsel gave an incorrect answer when a Commissioner asked what approvals would necessary to construct improvements to a private road, including dealing with water flows. Corporation Counsel did not believe a permit was required. The deputy planning director said he would need to consult with the Department of Public Works. Another Commissioner said he was not comfortable with the Corporation Counsel's representation. • Planning Director Kern was allowed to speak to the Commission under the agenda item, "Announcements" to disclose a procedure had been decided upon to deal with his potential conflicts of interest. Rather than limiting himself to making an announcement, the Planning Director proceeded to go into the details of a Board of Ethics meeting and procedures being put into place to address Mr. Kern's potential conflicts of interest. The Chair of the LPC Comm. No. IS 9 Ref. To: Ref. Date MAY 3 4 2021 i pointed out that Mr. Kern should not have gone into detail because this matter was not on the agenda and that he would place this matter on the agenda of the next meeting. • The same situation occurred when lane Campbell was allowed to make an announcement. She proceeded to give details of the announcement, despite the matter was not formally agendized. I ask the Planning Committee vote against Communication 183 as the procedures that are being implemented to accommodate Mr. Van Pernis have reduced the confused and frustration that had previously existed related to his participation. I also ask that the Planning Committee will urge the Planning Department and LPC to consider the recommendations I have made to improve the administration of the LPC. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty Captain Cook April 13, 2021 Leeward Planning Commission Re: Testimony on 1) April 15, 2021 Meeting Agenda Item 1. and 2) Administrative Matters Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Leeward Planning Commission, Please consider the following testimony: Agenda Item 1. The applicant is requesting a maximum of 10 guests for a two-bedroom bed-and-breakfast with a water usage not to exceed 400 gallons. I would ask the LPC to determine under what circumstances there would be 10 guests at the proposed B&B and at what number of guests the 400 gallon per day maximum usage would likely be exceeded. Administrative Matters This testimony is solely intended to provide important information to improve the administration and support of the Leeward Planning Commissioners by county government. Rule 1-5 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Leeward and Windward Planning Commission states, in part, "The parliamentary procedure to be utilized by the Commission in the conduct of its own meeting shall be based on the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order." During discussions of the April 7, 2021 county council Planning Committee, a member of the Committee asked, "Are members advised on their ability to use points of order?" The Planning Department's response was: "I don't believe it goes to that level." The Committee member asked whether LPC members are reminded during LPC meetings of their ability to make points of order and other parliamentary procedures to keep or restore decorum. The Planning Department's was "It's quite different [than the county council]. It's a lot friendlier...the chair pretty much rolls with it...the Commission still follows the general format of Robert's Rules of Order, but it's always been a bit different." A Committee member also asked about the "on-boarding process" for new commissioners related to parliamentary procedure. The Planning Department responded, "on Robert's Rules of Order, focusing on the authority of chair...that they [Commissioners] must stay on merits of application...are courteous to one another." The LPC is one of the most powerful and influential volunteer organizations in our county government. It deals with matters that can have great impacts on the lives of many people and involve millions of dollars each year. These are serious matters that deserve strict compliance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure. The discussion during the April 7, 2021 Planning Committee meeting revealed that more understanding and compliance with Robert's Rules of Order is in order for the LPC, Planning Department, and Corporation Counsel for the LPC. A review of LPC meetings also provide instances where Robert's Rules of Order would have resolved a difficult situations. For example, during a discussion of an agenda item at the December 17, 2020 LPC meeting, a Commissioner asked the Planning Department and corporation counsel if they had investigated whether or not an applicant was a duly registered legal entity. When the Commissioner did not receive an adequate response, the Commissioner could have said, "I object to consideration of this question because the applicant may not be a legal entity" or"I move we postpone consideration of this matter until it can be determined if the applicant is a legal entity." The LPC would then have been required to stop its proceeding to discuss the objection and not frustrate Commissioner's attempts to get an answer to an important, relevant question. Given the aforementioned, I ask that the Commissioners make and support the following motions or a facsimile of these under the agenda item, Administrative Matters: 1. Request a Robert's Rules of Order training for the LPC, Planning Department, and Corporation Counsel by a qualified parliamentarian. A list of registered parliamentarians can be found at the Hawai'i State Association of Parliamentarians, http://Iisap.org/PRP.html. 2. Work with the Planning Department, Corporation Council, and the county council Planning Committee to amend the Rules of Practice and Procedure to create and adopt a definitive process for disciplinary action for commissioners and the circumstances that would initiate that disciplinary process. Also, I would like to share the following "Basic Principals of Parliamentary Procedure" with the LPC, Planning Department, and Corporation Counsel for the LPC: 1. Only one subject may claim the attention of the assembly at one time. 2. Each proposition presented for consideration is entitled to full and free debate. 3. Every member has rights that are equal to every other member. 4. The will of the majority must be carried out, and the rights of the minority must be preserved. 5. The personality and desires of each member should be merged into the organizational unit. Finally, I'm attaching a .pdf file to the e-mail with my testimony that is a "Robert's Rules of Order Cheat Sheet" in the hope that commissioners,the Planning Department, and Corporation Counsel for the LPC will find it a useful and beneficial reference to facilitate the functioning of the LPC and well-being of its Commissioners. Mahalo nui loa for your good work and best wishes, Chuck Flaherty Captain Cook 111 96704