HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0857.001 2002-2004
January 5, 2005 J l i ''l
Gary Safarik, Chairman
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Chairman Safarik and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
Subject: Bill 371
Thank you for allowing me to present testimony on Bill 371, a charter amendment
proposal which, if approved by you and ratified by the electorate, would increase term limits for
councilmembers from four consecutive two-year terms to six consecutive terms, or put another
way, from eight years to twelve years. I believe that the proposal has merit in that it would
enhance the functions of the County council on at least three levels.
First, it has the potential of increasing the effectiveness of the council's policy-making
authority. In my mind, the legislative function of policy-making connotes a broader, longer-term
mission than that of the administration's, which is, as the term implies, ministerial in nature. Yet
the council and the mayor have the same tenure limits. Given the task, it does not seem
unreasonable to allow councilmembers an opportunity to influence county policy for at least half
a generation. After all, it will still be the voters who ultimately decide whether a councilperson
stays or goes. Moreover, inasmuch as various issues confronting the County are cyclical in
nature (such as affordable housing), a longer term could enable councilors to draw upon their
experiences and therefore take a more proactive approach to addressing such issues rather than a
reactive one. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than within the context of the council's
charter mandate to adopt a general plan every ten years. I believe that the past council's (of
which I was a part and for which I accept equal blame) inability to promptly adopt the presently
required general plan was, among a plethora of other things, somewhat attributable to the fact
that with the exception of Mr. Arakaki, none of the major players involved in developing and
approving the current document were in office during the previous review period. What
transpired, then, was a re-inventing of the process. From a procedural standpoint, we
(administration included) had no idea what worked and what didn't work the last time around.
Second, it should provide a boost, albeit a small one, to the legislative branch in relation
to the administrative branch. The present charter was established with the idea of creating a
strong mayor/weak council arrangement. Two charter amendments over the last decade or
so-two-year terms and term limits-have further curtailed the council's power vis a vis that of the
mayor's. Don't get me wrong. I have no gripe with either concept. But I believe that from a
checks and balances standpoint due consideration should be given toward creating a more
balanced relationship between the two branches of county government.
Third, and perhaps most compellingly, it might increase the potential pool of council
Comm. No.
Ref. To: l~raseaax s!
Ref. Date
candidates, thereby broadening the diversity of the council itself. Based on my understanding, an
employee within the State retirement system has vested rights to benefits upon the completion of
ten years of service (I must confess that there may be some nuances to this retirement law as they
relate to elected officials, but I can honestly say I don't know what those are). One of the main
reasons, if not the sole reason, for the current eight year term limitation was to preclude
councilmembers from attaining those ten years of continuous service. Make no mistake,
although there may have been a pervading sentiment on the part of the public for term limits,
there was no galvanized clamor for such limitation to be for eight years, as opposed to six or ten
or even twelve years. An unintended consequence of this limitation is that it provides a
disincentive to certain persons who might otherwise be interested in seeking a career in local
politics. I certainly cannot prove this assertion. However, a look at the composition of the
present council could be instructive. This council, not unlike those of the recent past, comprises
two distinct classes of individuals-business owners and retirees (or non-retirees whose past State
employment will be augmented by their current council employment). Where are the 35-years-
of-age-and-under group, the housewives, the non-union wage earners? Again, I cannot say for
sure that this proposal will in fact create more candidate interest and consequently more diversity
on the County Council. But I can say that if that possibility exists, it must certainly be
considered a policy worth pursuing, and it would behoove each and every one of you to take
more than a cursory look at this measure.
This proposal was merely an attempt on my part to address what I perceived, based on my
experience, as being a systemic weakness in our county structure which could be improved upon.
If you disagree with my assessment, vote the measure down. I assure you I will not lose any
sleep if that occurs. However, if you decide to take this issue to the voters, be forewarned that
such an action carries with it the responsibility of educating the public. I say this because since
the newspaper article on this matter was published this past Sunday, I have received numerous
comments from people on the proposal, most of which were negative. After being informed of
the reasons behind the measure, though, the overwhelming majority of those persons stated that it
made sense and that they would vote in favor of it if given the chance.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
rk'A
AARON S. Y. CH G