Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GOEAC 2024/01/09 (2022-2024) Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs 24th Session Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai`i January 9, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Operations and ORDER: External Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Acting Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Cindy Evans, Chair(via videoconference from Kona; came in later) Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. FROM THE PUBLIC ON The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called AGENDA ITEMS: by the Acting Chair: Joy Dillon Res. 389-24 (Comm. 647), in opposition. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Clerk, top of the agenda, please. COMMUNI- The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 670: NOMINATION OF ARTHUR TANIGUCHI TO THE LIQUOR COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated December 19, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation Requires Council Confirmation by: February 1, 2024 (Section 13-4(k), Hawai`i County Charter) GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 Vote on Comm. 670: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) nomination of Mr. Arthur Taniguchi to the Liquor Commission. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Evans and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—2. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 671: NOMINATION OF MATTHIAS KUSCH TO THE WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated December 20, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 2, 2024 (Section 13-4(k), Hawai`i County Charter) Vote on Comm. 671: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to recommend confirmation of (Approved) the nomination of Mr. Matthias Kusch to the Windward Planning Commission. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Evans— 1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Page 2 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 Comm. 672: NOMINATION OF CATHY FERREIRA TO THE PENSION BOARD From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated December 20, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 2, 2024 (Section 13-4(k), Hawai`i County Charter) Vote on Comm. 672: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) nomination of Ms. Cathy Ferreira to the Pension Board. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Evans— 1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 389-24: AMENDS THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`I BY AMENDING RULE NO. 23, BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Repeals Council Rule No. 23(1)(d), which requires that any bill or resolution that is amended at final reading be held over until the next regular meeting of the County Council. Reference: Comm. 647 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend adoption of Res. 389-24. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kimball, please lead our discussion. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I think I'll respond to the question that was asked by the testifier, as to why this was being brought forward. The reason is that 99 times out of 100, this is a rule that we waive. So, you know, Page 3 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 we are often making minor editorial changes; changing of figures, not doing anything significant. But then we have to waive this rule to both continue discussion and/or take a vote on a particular matter. My logical brain tells me, okay, if there's a rule that constantly gets waived, then it probably shouldn't be a rule. And I want to make very clear that this rule is an internal Council Rule. It is not a requirement of either the Sunshine Law or Robert's Rules. That being said, the comments made by the public, both the in-person testimony and the written testimony, you know, there's merit to that concern, right? Because we've seen that in other bodies at the State, in particular, the rule got replaced. Our process is a little bit more constricted, and I would say that you know, it's better that this body, as the decision-makers around this part of the rule, whether or not to waive it. We're also the decision-makers about whether or not to hold something over if there are changes that are significant enough that we think additional public input is required. We are also restricted in terms of the title of the pieces of legislation about how much modification we can make. I think we've demonstrated, generally speaking, that we do most of our work on bills and resolutions in Committee or in first reading, and often the changes we make at the final reading are very minor, editorial you know, in nature. If folks have grave concerns, you know, I'm willing to put some conditions in there that talk about substantive changes. But I would think as a body, we have that authority to postpone anyway. You know if we think something requires more public input after an amendment, somebody can move to postpone and hold it for another hearing. Again, I think the logic behind this is we have a rule that is almost always waived. In fact, in the three years that I have been here, we have never not waived this rule, to my knowledge. I would like Assistant Corporation Counsel, I'm not sure if Betsy was able to brief you real quickly? She did say she had a comment on the testifier's statement about—gotten replaced, with respect to this rule. I don't know, are you prepared to weigh in on that? (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: Good morning, Madame Chair. Good morning, Council Members. J Yoshimoto, Assistant Corporation Counsel. I did have an opportunity to speak with Corporation Counsel, Betsy Strance. As far as the specific comment or concern that was raised, I think she would be better suited Page 4 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 to address that. Because I think she was also present during what happened there. But I can say for the record, this resolution is legally sound and sufficient, and we have no concerns as far as the resolution is concerned. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you very much. And with that, Mr. Clerk, I don't know if you have any comments as the parliamentarian for our proceedings. As I said, you mentioned as we talked about this, that this is not a requirement per Robert's Rules, and it's really just a process that we've opted internally. If you have no comment, no need. But you're good? Okay. With that I'll yield, Chair, and leave it to the body to discuss. Thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Evans, thank you for joining us. MS. EVANS: Thank you very much. It's good to be here. Yeah, I would like to see this to be held in further discussion and thought on this idea of possibly how to amend it. You know, I've never been that big of a fan on waiving, but it's been the culture since I've arrived. I've only been here one year, and I wondered why we waive so much. But if in fact there's reasons to waive, I would rather see the language be more substantive on, when would it be appropriate to waive so that we have a little more guidance. But I do think based on my experience over the years as an elected official, when you do a floor amendment, even on final reading, normally you don't vote and act on it because it gives the public time to weigh in on what the amendment is, you know, before the final vote. So, it may be, if it's just housekeeping or certain matters that you don't believe rise to the level of public scrutiny, I would say you know, you should maybe put some language in there to maybe give it a little more clarity. But to strike this requirement, I do not think is a good idea. So, thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Evans. Back here in Hilo, anyone? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You know, it's funny because I was actually just going ahead and just vote, yes, on this because I agree with Council Member Kimball that we normally do just waive our rules and vote anyway on the matter. But in light of some of the things that have come up in the past week or two, especially regarding that resolution we discussed on the Council floor and amended, the public weigh-in is also important, to Ms. Evan's point. Not that I'm not voting for the resolution but just you know, before Council looking for something that kind of holds up the transparency and the process, but also doesn't create unnecessary process in finding a middle ground if there Page 5 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 is one to be had. So, you know, I like both sides. It sucks being a Libra, but there I am. Chair, I yield, thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm also struggling with this in that, I think the times we sometimes get into the most trouble is when we waive things and skip one of our three times for public to weigh in. So, I guess I'm concerned about if we waive something, and then there's also this understanding that the history is that we almost never use this. So, at this point, it's just you know, clogging up. But it's good, I think, to reflect on why it is that we waive at this point, but also be conscientious, I think you know, at the times we are waiving things from say, out of Committee before discussing. If we didn't do that at all, I think I'd have less concerns. But the fact that we do that, it seems like you know, there's been sometimes we've done that, and maybe I feel like we haven't explained to the public well, why it was waived necessarily. So, people on the dais may understand why it was waived, but it's not necessarily evident to the public why it was waived, and sometimes it can feel like getting pushed through. Point of MS. KIMBALL: Chair, can I make a quick Point of Clarification before we go Clarification: too far down this road? I want to make very clear that it's not related to waiving from Committee or waiving at a reading. It's the rule that it requires we hold it at second and final reading. MS. KAGIWADA: Right, I understand that. MS. KIMBALL: So, if we've amended it. And so, we still would be required—it's a different requirement than the waiving from a Committee. Thank you. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks for that clarification, and I do understand that. I just think for the public, it sometimes gets all jumbled up. So, when we say that we want to do away with this particular rule of ours that is not part of Sunshine and is not, you know, something required and is something that we almost always waive, I understand it from that point. Page 6 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 But I think from a public viewpoint, it gets confusing when we recently had some things waived out of Committee, and then this seems like it's another kind of shortcut, I think for people. So, you know, I think we have to do a little bit better job explaining to the public why we do some of the things we do. Thanks. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Great, Ms. Kagiwada. I'm going to go to Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Kimball, for bringing this forward. I completely understand what is being proposed here. It has nothing to do with waiving legislation out of Committee to be heard at Council. What we are merely doing is allowing for continued discussion on measures that may be amended at final reading. Oftentimes between first and second reading, there may be a typographical error or there may be something that members of the public have brought up that we want to resolve. And we are good with it. We are putting forward that amendment at final reading, and at that point, what we're doing is we are then waiving, holding that bill over another Council meeting. I think what this is designed to do is to just ensure increased efficiency within our legislative operations. And I know, in just reflecting on our time together at Council, every Council that I've been a part of, anything really substantive that is being put forward, we've taken it upon ourselves to postpone measures, we have. I'll just, you know, out of context. Let's say you know, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's bill related to private roads is on second reading and there is a clerical issue that needs to be dealt with an amendment, we all understand the merits and intention of the bill. We would make the amendment at second reading. I wouldn't see any reason to continue to hold that bill over. We are merely addressing an issue that we've identified and have agreed to solve for. So, I wouldn't want to wait another two weeks to adopt that measure, because we're all in agreement on the amendment. That being said, I have no issue with advancing this forward. I think it does make sense because we do this all the time so that we can continue to have discussion on legislation and move that legislation forward. So, I'll be supporting it. Thank you, I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: I just want to check for those who haven't spoken on the matter, if they have any comments before going to a second round. Mr. Inaba. Page 7 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 MR. INABA: Thank you for bringing this forward because, yes, logically we always waive this rule so that we can continue discussion. And the rule already allows for if it's, you know, small clerical or typographical errors that we don't need to hold over. So, the rule is really for significant changes at a final reading. You know, now that the public—there's been a couple testifiers share. I'd be comfortable to move this forward today, but I'm almost wondering, thinking ahead, if we would hold it at Council just to a certain date. So we can be more mindful as to how often and even mindful when we are voting,to waive this rule moving forward because there have been incidences recently where we voted to suspend this rule. In those cases, maybe we would think a little bit further about waiving a rule. But I definitely understand and appreciate this being brought forward considering we do it all the time. So, I can support it exactly as it is today. I'm just thinking ahead that at Council, I might want to hold it just for a certain period of time so see how we operate and be more mindful about how we go about using this or waiving this rule. So, thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I actually think there's confusion, and I'll tell you why. When I read the language that's being struck out, it says, "a bill or resolution up for a final reading." So,this isn't waiving from Committee. This isn't waiving from first reading; it's not waiving from second reading. This is not about waiving. This is about, when a bill is up for the final vote, if for some reason, there's an amendment on the floor on that last day of the vote, what it says is, "the final action shall not be taken up until the next regular meeting." So what it says is, the"final action shall not be taken up until the next regular meeting." So, when you're on the final day; the final vote; for some reason you want to amend it, which wouldn't happen very often. What it says is, if you amend the language, you'll have to wait to the next meeting to vote on it. Similar to what you do on signing day at the State Legislature on the very, very last day when you're supposed to go home. If there's a floor amendment, and the Legislature agrees to the floor amendment, guess what? They have to wait and come back. They have to wait a minimum of 48 hours to be able to come back and vote on that amendment, because then the public has an opportunity to weigh in on it. So, I actually think there's a bit of confusion and I would ask the author to explain, because I think this is all about just final reading, not about waiting. MS. KIMBALL: Chair, may I respond? ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Absolutely, Ms. Kimball. Page 8 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 MS. KIMBALL: You're absolutely correct, Council Member Evans. This is nothing to do with waiving from Committee or any of the hearings. It has to do with suspending the rule to hold over. So, you know, to be very clear, resolutions have a minimum of two readings; bills have a minimum of three readings; charter amendments have a minimum of four readings. This comes into play when we make an amendment at that final reading. As I said before, we have never not waived this in my experience in only three years. I'm not sure if folks been here longer have ever seen anything waived. But what this actually does by taking the language out, it does provide some efficiency, which is, you know, kind of way of what I'm thinking of in terms of our processes. But it also puts a little bit more responsibility on us as the body to say, okay, this change is substantive, and we should hold it over for further public input. So, you know, it doesn't preclude us from holding something over. But it puts that responsibility on us to do that in a proactive way rather than in an automatic way, which I think is preferable, given that we waive this rule so often. So, I hope that clarifies a little bit in terms of where this is. And I would remind, you know, this again, it's not a requirement of Sunshine Law, it's a not requirement of Robert's Rules, which we are guided by. It is something that is just our own internal rules, and so, we are still—whether other bodies do this or not, it's not actually relevant because you know, this is our own internal guidance. Thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball, for bringing this forward. I think it's an interesting discussion to have. And I think there is a big difference between,you know, our process and other bodies' processes in that everything that we do is like right here. And you know, sometimes painfully so, and we have to work out every little change to a bill right here in front of everyone. So, efficiency is something I think we all are looking for because the process is inefficient but very transparent. So, I really understand your thoughts in doing this. And it's sort of like, you know, very much a 49/51 kind of a decision, as far as do we make it automatic, which way do we make it automatic, right? Page 9 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 I guess for me at this point right now, I'm thinking that we probably sort of from an optic's point of view just making ourselves waive it every time and having that little moment to think like, should we waive it or not. I mean, every time that I've been here, we just been, yeah waive it, because it's such a minor little thing that we're doing. But again, this is you know, setting a precedent. So, I guess I worry that we could have some future Council that has not as much integrity as we do, that might use it for, you know, less than transparent purposes. So, I guess at this point, I'm perhaps either not supporting it or perhaps wanting something, that would you know, spell out the parameters by which it would be not automatic. Thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Galimba. I'm going to go to Ms. Villegas and then I'm going to go to Ms. Evans. I just want to give everybody a first chance. So, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Yeah, I suppose the first question that comes up for me, is the history of this being created as a rule. And unfortunately, I don't have that history in front of me nor do I know when, how, or why this was included. I do share the sentiment and the experience that nine times out of ten, if not ten times out of ten, we have opted to—and here's the difference just in terminology, we're using the word, "waive", but I think what we say is, "suspend the rules." So,perhaps that's some of the confusion here. Because when the public hears, and even we hear, that things are waived out of Committee or waived to second reading or whatnot, the waiving versus suspending implies two different actions. And what we're talking about here is suspending the rules, correct? MR. YOSHIMOTO: That is correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, that helps clarify things for me, which helps it make a lot more sense. But there is a little inkling of me that shares some of the concerns that was just expressed by Council Member Galimba about potential, nefarious usage of the removal of the rule and removal of the need to suspend the rule. But I will humbly and honestly admit that I don't have that historical information of why this was created to begin with, which may have been to eliminate the potential for any kind of manipulation. So, the 51/49 is kind of with me as well. However, I also appreciate the sentiments expressed by Council Member Kierkiewicz on efficiency of government and keeping things moving, as we have so many things moving so Page 10 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 quickly, balanced with the trust and transparency of our community and the confusion about so many things in government. I mean just the difference in the term, "waive"versus "suspend," is very, very different. And if I myself, after sitting here every five years, still get confused by those things, I empathize with the public and their challenges in that capacity. So, I'm going to be okay to move this forward today. But I think there is wisdom and continued education. I appreciate this dialogue today. Thank you to the introducer for your explanations and clarifications of how and why you're bringing this forward based on—in the last three years, there has not been a time that we did not vote to suspend the rules. So, perhaps there's opportunity to include some of that. I don't know,the difference between suspend and waive and how that educates the public and how this relates differently to our process and moving things. Because I know I now have a better understanding of it after this conversation today and how that really affects things and where it goes from here. So, thank you for this, and I look forward to continuing to participate in the conversation, educate myself, and provide opportunity for the public as we are held to, having all of these conversations here in Council and all of us being educated together. I yield. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. I have one more light, Ms. Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I personally do not believe it makes us more efficient by what we're proposing. I think we as a body can make the motion to suspend the rules and vote on it. I think the beauty of that is it shows the public that there is rules in place that we have chosen to suspend them to move something forward. There will be times, I believe, when we're amending things again. This is only about the final reading. It's not about second reading, first reading, it's final reading. I think there's going to be times when there's going to be significant amendments. And I think that the rule is just in there to be very, very solid on its need to be given to the public for an opportunity to weigh in. I believe the rules give clarity to the new Council Member that moves forward. It gives clarity to the public when they determine what are rules of engagement by this Council. To me, it's very transparent. It shows thoughtful deliberation, thoughtful opportunity for the public to weigh in. Page 11 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 So, I think if you want to do something with this, I would say, be a little more clear and maybe add some substantive language to amend it, as to when in fact, we could go directly to when we amend, what amendments would not rise to the level of waiting till the next time? Like currently it says, this provision does not apply to the annual budget. It also says, it doesn't apply to correction of electable, typographical errors, grammatical housekeeping. It doesn't seem to apply to that. It already is there in the rules. I personally believe the more clarity we have the better, and I really don't believe the argument of efficiency really stands in this case. I think the way we do it; waiving is sufficient enough. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Evans. Anyone else? Thank you, Members. For the maker, I'm actually going to say, "no." I've been around the Council, not only this term, but a few terms before, and I acknowledge that the rules are adopted at each new term, and part of the rules that carry over really is a practice that the community has come to rely on. So over time, to Ms. Villegas' point, there was a time when huge amendments would happen at second and final reading, and the community would not have an opportunity to weigh in. That was also at a different time when only five members served on the Committee. So, all nine members could not weigh in until first and second reading at the Council. So, these rules have been in evolution of time and the evolution of just different things that have happened over time. I know for me personally, when I ask to waive the rules, it isn't to make that final decision that day, it's to provide the conversation to continue on that amendment. Oftentimes, I am very comfortable after we're waived the rules and we've added a lot of color and thought behind that amendment. I'm just of a space where I would rather ask permission for it to be held over. Like, hey, I'm good with it, rather than the opposite. We're going to be asking the opposite. It's going, no matter what. And I know, oftentimes I'm watching the Council Members; they're so in the moment of listening to public testimony, that there's a lot of passion behind that. And to think about what waiving that means, it's challenging for all of us. That's why we sit in these black chairs, and we have to think clearly. So, I'm not going to be supporting this rule at this time. I'm sure going forward, there'll be options as far as putting in more guardrails, you know. But for me, I'm just really relying on past practices that the community has really relied upon over time. It really is. If it's substantive, it's going to get held over for one more reading if it's at final reading. And I don't see the harm in asking for a waiver. Page 12 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 It's just mechanics, and that's where I'm at. So, Ms. Kimball, I see your light. Any thoughts on my position? MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for the history. And thank you everyone for the comments and the feedback, as well as the public comments on this particular matter. You know, I've always been one to prefer to hold things in Committee. I think I can do a little more work on this to maybe assuage some of the concerns that have been raised and provide that clarity that Council Member Evans is asking for. So, I'd like to make a motion to postpone Resolution 389-24 to the February 6th Committee Meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Res. 389-24 to February 6, 2024. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Members, any discussion on the postponement? Seeing none, I have a motion the floor. All those in favor of postponing Resolution 389-24, please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The vote on the motion to postpone Res. 389-24 to Postpone: February 6, 2024, was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 390-24: APPROVES THE HAWAI`I STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' (HSAC) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SLATE OF OFFICERS Ratifies the slate of officers approved by the Hawai`i State Association of Counties Executive Committee on December 18, 2023, as follows: Hawai`i County Council Members Heather Kimball, President(Jennifer Kagiwada, Alternate); Maui County Council Members Tamara Paltin, Vice President (Shane Sinenci, Alternate); Kaua`i County Council Members Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., Secretary (Bill DeCosta, Alternate); and Honolulu City Council Members Tommy Waters, Treasurer (Esther Kia`aina, Alternate). Reference: Comm. 648 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend adoption of Res. 390-24. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. Page 13 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Just part of our process as far as HSAC is concerned. Nomination of officers for the next term, and I'm honored to have been selected to serve as President for the coming term for HSAC. So, ask for your approval of this resolution. Thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Go, Hawai`i County. Right on, Council Chair Kimball. I am so glad that it is you leading the statewide body. We're very proud of you and grateful for your leadership. I will be supporting the resolution. Thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? I was exactly right there. That a girl, way to take the lead. Absolute, in support of mana wahines leading the squad at the State level. All those in favor of forwarding Resolution 390-24 to the Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." Vote on Res. 390-24: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 390-24 was carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 391-24: AMENDS THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`I BY AMENDING RULE NO. 25, INVOCATION Seeks to incorporate `olelo Hawai`i and Hawaiian cultural practices into County Council meetings by adding kahu and kumu to the list of persons eligible to perform the invocation. Reference: Comm. 649 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend adoption of Res. 391-24. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kimball. • Page 14 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Hoping that this one is a little more straightforward than the previous rule amendment. But the genesis of this was because February is Hawaiian Language Month. And so, I was thinking about who we could bring in for an invocation and was reminded by Council Services that we have this requirement that our invocation be delivered by a minister. And you know, as this particular body, we had I think a goal to support native Hawaiian practices, native Hawaiian language. And it seems crazy to me that we couldn't bring a kahu or a kumu in to do that invocation for us. So, this is a proposal to amend that Rule to allow for that, as well as a little bit of housekeeping that was requested by Council Services as this was reviewed. But the main gist here is that we will now be able to bring cultural practitioners and cultural educators in to guide us on our way as Council Members. So, hope for everyone's support on this today. Thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes, thank you. I had the opportunity to review this. And in light of some of the Mahina `Olelo Hawai`i stuff this Council has done in the past, grateful to Council Chair Kimball for bringing this forward and creating this avenue for future `Olelo Hawai`i to live here at the Council. So, mahalo. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else? Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I actually had the opportunity once, someone who works as kind of a spiritual guide and advisor on the West side, but for some reason, their pastoral licensing, or I'm not sure all the legal terminology around that, they weren't allowed to then come and do a blessing for us. So, as somebody who sees spirituality and our connection to the divine, especially as it relates to cultural practices and the rejuvenation, regeneration, and reconnection to our host culture and the cultural practices here, this just really hits home for me. So, thank you for changing this and updating it into a kind of 21st Century reflections of our inclusiveness and incorporating experiences, perceptions, and ceremony in just how we reconnect with one another around our beliefs and divinity. And I just think this is really in alignment with bringing our County—when I think of the Hawai`i economic futures' initiatives, I see that really correlating with that perfectly. So, thank you, I'll be supporting this wholeheartedly. I yield. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villages. Anyone else? As I stated, absolutely appreciate this one. You know, I was just wondering and just food for thought. I've noticed that a lot of the meetings that I attend on the mainland, they actually kind of do away with prayer. And it's actually more words of inspiration. So, maybe, perhaps as a rule or a title invocation or words of inspiration would be Page 15 GOEAC-24 January 9,2024 kind of fitting. And I just love that there's a lot of equity in this rule now. So thank you very much, Ms. Kimball, for advancing this. Members, we have a motion on the floor to forward Resolution 391-24 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Res. 391-24: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 391-24 was carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: That takes us to the end of the agenda. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 10:34 a.m., Mr. Inaba moved to MENT: adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, we have nine members in favor of adjournment at 10:34 a.m. This meeting is adjourned. Approved: VOD Ms. Cindy Evans, r411,! (Date) Committee on Gove ,ental Operations and External Affairs CE/dt Page 16