HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0091.052 2022-2024 P/Council
ct ;NIt, > "�L �'II 22
I have many objections to Bill 22 and the manner in which tbvico t has roe:+ d to reach
ULJ this point.
I believe the County is in violation of the Sunshine Law, and may also be in violation of the
Hawaii Environmental Protection Act.
• The County has spent untold resources to get to this point, without much to show for it. It
has followed a secretive path to decide, without public consultation or expert advice,
that we need a County animal control agency, to be staffed by civil servants, even before
its responsibilities are defined.
• The Sunshine Law provides:
• §92-1 Declaration of policy and intent. In a democracy, the people are vested with the
ultimate decision-making power. Governmental agencies exist to aid the people in the
formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the governmental processes to
public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting
the public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State
that the formation and conduct of public policy-the discussions, deliberations, decisions,
and action of governmental agencies- shall be conducted as openly as possible. To
implement this policy the legislature declares that:
(1) It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;
(2) The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and
(3) The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly
construed against closed meetings. [L 1975, c 166,pt of§1]
• Rather than involve the public in deliberations, the County Administration and Council
have chosen back room"multi-agency working groups" to decide upon a course of action
that is at odds with best practices identified by numerous experts, who the Administration
and Council have declined to consult.
• The Hawaii Environmental Protection Act requires an environmental assessment
whenever there is a proposal to use County lands or funds. HRS 343-5.
• The preamble to Bill 22 states that the Police Department"identified"that a separate
agency was required. I'm not at all sure what that means,but it certainly seems to be an
agency proposal to use County lands or funds, which should trigger an environmental
review.
• By adopting the recommendations of the Police Department without examining
alternatives and involving the public in the process, the council would be abrogating
its duties to the public under the Sunshine Law and the Hawaii Environmental
Comm. Ne CU'91
Ref. To: Pl COMA
Ref. Date FEB 2 2 .2023
Protection Act.
• In addition to these objections to the manner in which the Administration and Council
have reached this point, I have the following concerns about the language of the bill itself.
There is no authority in Bill 22 to house cruelty cases.
• 4-2-1 provides the agency with discretion to establish a pound for strays "or any seized
animals".
• "Seized animals" is not a defined term.
• 4-2-3 grants to power to seize and impound strays. It does not address cruelty cases or
dangerous dogs. It should, for clarity's sake.
• HRS 711-1109.1 does not provide for impounding a cruelty case at a County-run animal
pound. It also does not provide for"seizure" of cruelty cases. The Council could step up
to the plate on this issue, and address this serious problem in this County. Bill 22 is
silent.
• I understand that the goal is to revise or replace Chapter 4,but since 4-2-1 and 4-2-3 are
already proposed for amendment, why not create an ordinance that is unambiguous in the
short term?
• There is no justification for omitting the requirement of quarterly reports (4-2-7) and
those reports should be made public. The proposed reporting provision for"periodic
reports to the managing director" is grossly insufficient. Instead, the agency should be
held to the same reporting requirements the Humane Society was required to meet when
it held the animal'control contract. The agency must gather and publicly report data not
only because the public deserves to know,but also because without that information, the
agency has no chance of improving its operations over time. Trust may be at an all
time low on this issue, and hiding the facts from the public only reinforces the
perception that the Council has lost track of its duty to serve the publico
• Finally, there is no justification for failing to provide for an oversight committee. The
Council appears to believe that the need to abide by the Sunshine Law should an
oversight committee be created is reason enough to avoid creating such a committee.
This seems to be the common thread running through all actions to date on this issue:
secrecy and deliberate attempts to circumvent the public policy of transparency embodied
in both the Sunshine Law and the Hawaii Environmental Protection Act.
• Your constituents deserve far better.
Sincerely,
Judy Howard