Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1056.001 2006-2008 tV Of NI,Yy bey Phone: (808)326-542l BRENDA J FORD i. Fax: (808)329-4786 Council Member E-Mail: bford@co.hawaii.hi.us District 7 - Central Kona HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai `i Kailua Trade Center 75-5706 Hanatna Place, Suite 109 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 DATE: March 5, 2008 TO: Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, F, : and Members of the Hawaii County Council = = ; 00 ' FROM: ` %Brenda J. Ford, Council Member SUBJECT: Transmitting handouts as communications for bill 257, Initiative and Referendum Attached please find five handouts from the committee supporting Bill 257, Initiative and Referendum charter amendment. These handouts need to be provided to the Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations committee members on March 11, 2008. Thank you. Enclosure Gamin: 14M /O5(,. Ref. Toe FreseAhfri G Ref. Date MAR 1 2 Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Hawal'i Countv Is An EoualOpportunity Provider And Emplover i Eb " i ~~FI3~?rig id~d. ,:mJfl, To: Hawai'i County Council From: League of Women Voters, Hawai'i County Date: March 2, 2008 Re: Proposed Revision of County Charter Article XI, Initiative and Referendum The League of Women Voters of Hawai'i County would like to express its full support for the revision proposed by our committee. After months of work, they have written a document which clarifies the ambiguities of the original and introduces safeguards for both the public and the county. We hope you will approve this revision, moving it to the ballot where voters can judge its merits. For the most part, the version presented by Council Chair Hoffmann reflects League's version. However, there are several differences. They include a dispute resolution panel; a guard against overturn of the legislation for three years; and the use of mailing address as an alternative to residence address for verifying signatures. We believe these features are necessary to the effectiveness of the initiative/referendum process. Thank you for your time and your willingness to let us work on this issue. Susan IDursin Leilani Bronson-Crelly Co-President, LWVHC Co-President, LWVHC Attachments: 1) Proposed Changes, Hawai'i County Charter, Article XI 2) League of Women Voters' Proposed Charter Amendment, March 2, 2008 3) League of Women Voters' Time Line examination of the definition of "qualified voter", it was determined that as long as the person had registered to vote when the petition was examined against the general register by the Office of the County Clerk, the signature should be validated. "Thus, all signatures falling only under the "Prior Signature Date" criteria in both original and supplementary petitions were added to the valid signature total, 27. Based upon a thorough and comprehensive examination of each signatory against the general register (Statewide Voter Registration System), the voter registration information on file, applicable law and procedures, I find the following relating to the validity of the signatures UM submitted: Tat I Signatures Required for $uf Wje ty 1,846 Total Signatures Submitted 8,782 "aft Total Signatures Withdrawn At Signatory's Request -1 Total Signatures Invalidated Due To Discrepancies with 1 Circulator's Affidavit and Signatory's Date Total Net Signatures Examined 8,7so Total Valid Signatures (includes 113 PSD Signatures) 3,982 Total Invalid Signatures 4,728 Additional Signatures Still Required for Sufficiency 864 ~r* Reasons li7r Invalidity"" O1 Total Duplicate Signatures 181") X1 Number of Signatures - No Residence Address (NRA) (::Dr j0 Number of Signatures -Residence Address No Match (RANIvt Number of Signatures - Not Hawaii County (Nl IC) 68 Aff Numberof- No Printed Name (NPN) 3 Number of Signatures - No Signature Date (NS1D) SOS ~O Petition Initiative and Referendum: Reasons for the Dispute Resolution Panel and Other Guidelines Steps of the Petition Initiative Process: • The Petition Initiative and Referendum process is used after attempts to introduce legislation though the Council or Mayor are unsuccessful. • The goal of a Petition Initiative or Referendum drive is to get the issue on the ballot to let citizens decide. The ballot language should be easy to read, unbiased and objective as possible. The existing charter does not say who is responsible for the ballot language, ballot summary or ballot title. In the past, the County has controlled the process for the ballot language, the ballot title and the ballot summary, because they submit the wording to the Elections Commission and there is not time to dispute the language before the ballot deadline. • The Dispute Resolution Panel would be formed to equalize the process between the county and a Petitioner's committee by resolving disputes quickly. The formation of the Dispute Resolution panel occurs early in the process so that panel members can stay informed to resolve issues quickly. We provided that the 5th member be chosen by the other two panelists so they could decide what type of expertise is most necessary for the fifth member. We felt it was important to leave this decision to the wisdom of the other four panelists. If the panel fails to choose a fifth member the panel can still make decisions. For example, in the future, computers may be used to collect and there may be disputes over the process regarding those issues, in this case, the most valuable fifth panelist could be a computer expert. • The Dispute Resolution panel provides a mechanism for the two sides to seek solutions together. The Dispute Resolution Panel could be used for any contested issue during the process. The following information is included to illustrate the need for the dispute resolution panel, more guidelines and the reorganization of the Article chronologically. The Save Our Lands Citizens Committee Coordinator describes the issues below. The League of Women Voters was not a sponsor or the 2% campaign and had no official position on this issue. 1- The goal of a petition initiative or referendum drive is to get the issue on the ballot to let citizens decide. In the existing charter article, if the county and citizens groups disagree, the only recourse available to the petitioners committee is to go to court. The Save Our Lands Citizens Committee consulted an ex-corporation counsel attorney. He said by the time he prepared the case and got the matter scheduled on the docket, we would have missed the ballot deadline in early September. 2- We submitted the petition forms to the County Clerk, the Elections Commissioner and Corporation counsel. We received the forms back with no comment and assumed that they were according to the law. At the end of the process, we were given the County's version of the ballot language. The County had interpreted our decision not to include 214-2-d, (the "purpose" clause) of the Open Space ordinance, as a deliberate deletion of that part of the ordinance. By removing this clause, 2% of the tax money could have been used for any purpose. 3- Time lines. The Clerk told us that we could collect signatures a 3rd time during the time the clerk was counting the second set of signatures. We instructed volunteers to collect signatures for an additional 10 days. Corporation counsel told us that the Clerk could not accept more signatures, because it was not stated in the Charter that signatures could be collected a 3rd time. We collected almost 1,700 signatures during this time which were not added to the final count., These extra signatures were crucial to the citizens' effort because so many signatures had been invalidated. We did not understand the criteria for signature verification until after we received the results of the first count. 4- The criteria for verifying signatures. We included optional information on the petitions, such as the birthdate and last four digits of the social security numbers to help qualify voter's signatures. 2,078 signatures were found invalid because electors did not know their residence address or their residence address did not match the general register. 508 signatures were invalidated because the year, 2006 was omitted, according to the Certificate of Insufficiency, "Persons who did not provide the date of signing, or provided an incomplete date, had their signatures invalidated." See attached-Results from the Certificate of Sufficiency. 5- Confusion over when notices occurred. 6- Dispute over the ballot summary- The Petitioner's committee submitted an argument in favor, which was rejected because it was not unbiased. 7- Dispute over the ballot question and ballot title- The Petitioner's committee submitted our preferred language, which was rejected. On the day that the ballot language was due at 5:00 pm to meet State for the ballot deadline, we received the ballot language and ballot title, which deleted the "purpose clause" of the ordinance at 4:30 pm and did not use 2% in the title. This would mean that 2% of property taxes could be directed for any purpose. There was no recourse or we would have missed the ballot deadline. 8- The Clerk found that the signatures were insufficient. The committee needed 4,846 signatures, we collected 8,782 signatures, of which 4, 728 were found to be invalid and 3,982 were valid. The Council was asked to grant a certificate of sufficiency, which they did. Council Chair introduced a Bill to set aside 2% of the property taxes, but it was unclear what would happen if the bill failed or was vetoed by the Mayor. The Petitioner's committee decided that the matter should go on the ballot, to let the votes decide. 9- The council asked the Save Our Lands Committee and the League of Women Voters to look at the charter. The League of Women Voters has included a Dispute Resolution panel in their version of the Charter. The Save Our Lands Citizen's Committee asks that you include the Dispute Resolution Panel in the legislation. This will ensure that the both the County and the Petitioner's committee have equal consideration with this watchdog entity. If you would like documentation of the above issues, please contact: Debbie Hecht 989-3222 or hecht.deb(c)gmail.com League Committee members: Sue Dursin, Marian Wilkins and Debbie Hecht The League of Women Voters: Proposed Changes for the Hawai'i County Charter Article XI: Petition Initiative and Referendum The Petition Initiative and Referendum process protects the right of citizens to establish laws. The League of Women voters has worked with members of the 2% for the Land Fund campaign to re- write Article XI in clear, unambiguous language and to provide guidelines to assure that the process is fair for all participants, citizens and the county. It is important to note that this is basically a reorganization of the existing Article into chronological order. The proposed Charter re-write for Article XI: 1. Reorganizes the Charter amendment into a more chronological order of the process, in clear language, which is easier to follow. 2. Provides procedures and time periods to approve the petition forms, ballot title, ballot question and ballot summary. The Hawaii County Clerk provides a sample petition form and works with the committee to craft the petition form, the ballot title, ballot question and the ballot summary early in the process. 3. Provides a deadline for council action, which guarantees that the ballot question of a qualifying initiative or referendum will be placed on the ballot. 4. Provides specific criteria to verify signatures. The voter's name, signature, and residence address or mailing address must be reasonably similar to the information contained on their voter's registration card or the general register of the County of Hawaii. 5. Petition circulators are not required to have their signatures notarized before turning in signed petitions, but are required to sign a statement that they had the proposed legislation available for petition signers and that the signer had signed in their presence. The petitions are required to state if circulators are paid or not paid. 6. Provides a section with definitions. 7. States that if the measure is approved by voters, the measure shall become law after the election is certified. The League of Women Voters favor the following additions to this legislation: 1. A dispute resolution panel will be formed early in the process with two people appointed by the Citizen's committee and two people chosen by the clerk. The four panelists will choose the fifth member. This way the panel can closely watch the process and is required to submit rulings on issues within fifteen days. The dispute resolution panel is a safety valve to make sure the process proceeds smoothly. 2. Legislation passed by Article XI- Initiative and Referendum shall not be overturned or amended within 3 years except by six votes of the Hawaii County Council. This legislation shall not be subject to veto by the Mayor. Questions? Call the League of Women Voters: Sue Dursin Co-president 328-8514 Marian Wilkins phone 325-6116 Debbie Hecht 989-3222 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HAWAII COUNTY TIME LINE FOR INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESS REVISION OF ARTICLE XI, HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER FEBRUARY 8, 2008 START PETITIONERS FORM COMMITTEE AND INFORM CLERK. THE CLERK THEN ADVISES COMMITTEE OF THE DATE BY WHICH ALL STEPS MUST BE COMPLETED BY COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM MEASURE FOR THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. THEN 10 DAYS:* COMMITTEE AND CLERK FORM DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. 10 DAYS: CLERK INFORMS COMMITTEE OF ACCEPTANCE OF OR ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE FOR THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER. 10 DAYS: COMMITTEE ACCEPTS OR CONFERS WITH CLERK TO REACH AGREEMENT ON REQUIRED INFORMATION. (15 DAYS: IF NO AGREEMENT IS REACHED, COMMITTEE MAY NOTIFY CLERK THAT IT WANTS TO APPEAL TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL.)* 5 DAYS: WHEN ALL ABOVE IS COMPLETED, CLERK GIVES TO THE COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER. NEXT COMMITTEE CIRCULATES PETITION-NO TIME LIMIT. 30 DAYS: SIGNED PETITIONS ARE SUBMITTED TO CLERK FOR SIGNATURE VERIFICATION AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OR INSUFFICIENCY. DURING THIS TIME COMMITTEE MAY CONTINUE TO GATHER SIGNATURES. 20 DAYS: IF FOUND INSUFFICENT, COMMITTEE MAY SUBMIT ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES UP TO 20 DAYS AFTER THE, NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY WAS RECEIVED. 15 DAYS: CLERK TO COMPLETE VERIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES; ISSUES SECOND CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OR INSUFFICIENCY. CLERK SENDS INFORMATION TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION. 60 DAYS: COUNCIL TAKES ACTION ON A QUALIFYING INITIATIVE. OR 30 DAYS: COUNCIL TAKES ACTION ON A QUALIFYING REFERENDUM. 5 DAYS: IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN BY COUNCIL, OR IT ADOPTS AN AMENDED VERSION THAT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE, THE CLERK SHALL SUBMIT THE ORIGINAL VERSION TO THE VOTERS. 21+DAYS: CLERK PUBLISHES BALLOT QUESTION, TITLE, SUMMARY, PROS AND CONS IN NEWSPAPERS FOR THREE SUNDAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION IN WHICH THE MEASURE IS TO BE VOTED ON. ADDITIONAL STEPS EARLY SEPTEMBER: FOR A QUALIFYING MEASURE, THE CLERK SUBMITS BALLOT TITLE, BALLOT SUMMARY AND BALLOT QUESTION TO THE STATE ELECTIONS OFFICE TO BE INCLUDED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. ELECTION: GENERAL ELECTION--FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER AFTER THE MEASURE PASSES AND THE ELECTION IS CERTIFIED, THE MEASURE SHALL BECOME LAW. • Days refer to working days. * Add 15 days any time Dispute Panel Resolution is used.