The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0268.000 2002-2004 +~Y ~ JAMES Y. ARAKAKI AARON S.Y. CHUNG ('harrman & Presiding q~cer ~ BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD-TODD LENINGRAD ELARIONOFF J. CURTIS TYLER, III ~ JULIEJACOBSON '°'i~ NANCY PISICCHIO I rce Cha~rmon h or'M~ GARY SAFARIK DOMINIC YAGONG COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai "i ]/away "i County Buildfreg 25 ~upani Street Milo, Nawai"i 96720 June 19, 2003 MEMORANDUM To: All Council Members Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo. Hawaii 96720 ~a,~, From: r"t James Y. Arakaki, Chair Hawaii County Council Subject: Attached Bill (Relating to Sister City Relationships) Attached please find a bill to a amend Chapter 2 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995) Edition, relating to Sister City Relationships. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Att. Comm. No: Ref. Tot Ref. Cnte tr or AL KONISHI t'(71VSTANCE R. KIRIU County Clerk r ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ Lrg~slo~ive Auditor JAY MENDE 17 PSI T 35 Depup~ County Clerk CO~r, ~ c~~i~~ County of Hawai `i~UNTY ~ iF HAWAU O, f/ice of the County Clerk 1J Aupuni S[reet Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (e[ephone: 8081 96/-11255 Facsimile- BOHi 967-89/2 June 13, 2003 To: James Y'. Arakaki, Council Chair From: Wally lida, Leg. Asst o-~ ~ Via: Connie Kirin, Legislative Auditor ~ Re: Hawaii County Sister City Relationships Legislative History Ordinance 93-31(April 21, 1993), Bi1140 (Draft 2) On March 24, 1993, Council Member Helene Hale introduced Bill 40 to establish criteria and formal procedures for setting up and maintaining sister city relationships. Besides setting criteria and procedures, this bill also provided that the protocol officer would oversee the county's sister city relationships, including the writing of yearly reports to be submitted to the council. During this process there was disagreement about the 5-year requirement to exchange gifts or a goodwill mission. For example, Council Member Brian De Lima expressed concern that "Maybe 5 years is too short a period.... maybe it should be a longer period Council Member Jim Rath echoed Mr. De Lima's concern. Council Member Hale responded that the 5-year condition needed to be reviewed, but "it's a beginning and a starting point for us to set some kind of policy." Ordinance 93-102 (October 10, 1993), Bill 128 Bill 128 was introduced by Mrs. Hale to address some flaws in Ordinance 93-31. Section 2-165 (c) was amended to read as follows: "Any sister city relationship in which there is a failure to implement the agreement or to exchange gifts or goodwill missions within afive-year period [shall] may result in the [automatic] termination of the agreement and relationship by council resolution." This amendment provides the means (council resolution) for terminating a sister city relationship. It also provides discretion and flexibility by changing "shall" to "may" and by deleting the adjective "automatic" in front of termination. HCC, Section 2-166 (a), was amended to read as follows: "A protocol officer, who shall be [appointed] desi ne ated by the Mayor [and housed in the Office of chc Mayor], shall be responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the formal agreement signed by the County of Hawaii and the sister city. The protocol officer serves at the discretion of the Mayor for the term of office of the Mayor and may be removed by the Mayor." Although no reference in the council minutes was found, we assume that "designated" is a more appropriate word than "appointed. "Appointed" suggests a more formal process and usually applies to department heads and members of board and commissions whose appointments are subject to council confirmation. Section 2-166(b) remained as follows: "The protocol officer shall be responsible for informing the County of Hawaii's existing sister cities of the terms and conditions of this article and shall submit an annual report to the council by December 31 of each year which summarizes the activities of the County of Hawaii's sister cities and identifies the sister cities for which no activity has occurred within five years, thereby resulting in an automatic termination of the County of Hawaii's sister city relationships." Protocol Officer Reports The latest protocol officer's sister city annual report dated December 18, 2002, states that because of a lack of activity over an extended period of time, the status of three sister cities (Sao Miguel, Azores, Portugal; Tasmania, Australia and Legazpi City, Philippines) were described as being "in doubt." This lack of activity could mean the ending of the sister city relationship. However, before any termination process begins, some issues related to the Hawaii County Code should be noted. Problems with the Code as Written ? When Section 2-165(c) was amended, Section 2-166(b) was left unchanged; therefore, the language in these two sections is currently inconsistent. ? There is no language in Section 2-166(b) to specify the responsibilities of the protocol officer (and by extension the administration) in the process for terminating a sister city relationship. ? There are yearly appropriations for the sister city program. Section 2-165(b) mandates that "County funds shall be appropriated to provide for the exchange of gifts or goodwill missions to promote the newly established sisterhood and the concept of mutual understanding." People when reviewing or looking at the sister city program would inevitably ask -how much money was budgeted and how much and on what budget items was the money spent on? The current Protocol Officer report should reflect expense data that lists how much money was spent on what budgeted items. ? The due date of the report is currently December 31 of each year, but it is not clear what period the report covers. 2 u Since funds are appropriated on a fiscal year basis, the program activities should he reported within the same time frame and tied to program expenditures. This report would then meet the Charter requirements of a program review. Recommended Steps 1. The Council should amend the code to address the issues cited above. A draft bill is attached for your consideration. 2. If the code is amended, the administration can: ? Introduce a resolution to terminate as the relationship with Legazpi City. The last attempt to contact representatives of Legazpi City was made on December ] 0, 1996, according to a report by former protocol officer Rudy Legaspi dated December 10, 2000. At that time, Mr. Legaspi recommended termination of the relationship with Legazpi City. In his latest report, Mr. Levin reported that Legazpi City did not respond to an invitation to attend the 2002 Sister City Summit. On January 14, 2003, when Rudy Legaspi stopped by the County Building, we asked him about Legazpi City. He replied that the sister city rclationship with Legazpi should be terminated because of the lack of activity. Moreover, he stated that no local cultural or business groups arc involved with Legazpi City. ? The administration should decide whether to terminate the other two sister city relationships in question: Sao Miguel and Tasmania. However, before any process for termination begins, the protocol officer has to verify (document) this lack of activity. In sister city relationships, local business or community groups help maintain the sister city relationships. For example, the relationship with Sao Miguel is related to cultural tics with HIPCC (Hawai`i Island Portuguese Chamber of Commerce). For Tasmania. the rclationship was setup on the recommendation of Council Member John Ray at the request of Gene Eger of the Rotary Club of North Kohala. As a matter of courtesy, the HIPCC and Gene Eger of the Rotary Club of North Kohala should be contacted and asked about their intentions regarding their sister city relationships for Sao Miguel and Tasmania, respectively. Once the principals have been notified, the protocol officer can recommend whether or not to terminate the sister city relationships. If termination is the recommendation, the administration can introduce a resolution terminating the sister city relationships. 3