Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0931.000 1996-1998 ~ w DONALD IKEDA ALAN S. KONISHI County Ckvk •'a,.," Deputy County Clerk ~re'oi'x~'tl OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK Election Division County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Memorandum To: Honorable James Y. Arakaki Chair, Hawaii County Council From: Donald Ikeda Clerk Date: July 23, 1998 RE: Initiative Petition of the Parents Against Irradiation The purpose of this memorandum is to present two certificates issued to the Parents Against Irradiation, with regard to the initiative petition the committee submitted on June 19, 1998 and which the committee amended by a supplemental filing on July 20, 1998. This presentation is made in compliance with Article XI, Hawaii County Charter. Section 11-5(a) states: Within twenty days after the filing of an initiative or referendum petition, the clerk of the council shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition. As soon as a certificate is completed, the clerk shall notify the petitioners' committee of the contents of the certificate. If a petition is certified sufficient the clerk shall pre nt his certificate to the county &Qnncil at its next meeting. If the clerk certifies a petition is insufficient, the certificate shall show the particulars wherein the petition is defective. A majority of the petitioners' committee may elect to amend a petition certified insufficient and must so notify the clerk, but if a majority does not elect to amend a petition, the clerk shall present the certificate to the county council at its next meeting. A petition is approved for consideration through council action upon the clerk's certificate of sufficiency. (underling added) Ale No. CC E14 t~.~:-. t~+- JUL 2 2 19gR Honorable James Y. Arakaki July 23, 1998 page two Section 11-6(a) states in relevant part: The county council shall proceed immediately to consider an initiative or referendum petition which has been determined sufficient in accordance with the provisions of this article. If an initiative petition is concerned, the ordinance it proposes shall at once be introduced subject to the procedures required for ordinances under Section 3-9 and 3-11 of this chapter ...(underlining added) Note that the Corporation Counsel has confirmed that the reference to the sections is incorrect. The proposed ordinance should be processed pursuant to sections 3-8 and 3-10. In accordance with the above quoted Charter provisions, presented with this memorandum are the following: 1) Certificate of Insufficiency, issued on July 7, 1998; 2) Certificate of Sufficiency, issued July 23, 1998; and 3) Letter from Richard D. Wurdeman, dated 16 July 1998 Presented separately is the ordinance proposed by the petition in bill form for our consideration. s C. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF HAWAII In the Matter of the ) Initiative Petition of ) CERTIFICATE OF INSUFFICIENCY PARENTS AGAINST ) EXHIBITS "A-C" IRRADIATION. ) CERTIFICATE OF INSUFFICIENCY Pursuant to Sectionl 1-5(a), Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, the initiative petition submitted by the PARENTS AGAINST IRRADIATION, entitled: "Initiative Petition - Amending Chapter 14, Article 8 (Nuclear Energy) of the Hawaii County Code", is hereby certified and deemed to be insufficient pursuant to Section 11-4(b), Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, on the grounds that the petition "is signed by less than the required number of qualified voters of the County." As explained in the following findings, the petition must contain 7,346 valid signatures to be deemed valid. The petition is deemed to contained 6,876 signatures of qualified voters of the County. Pursuant to Section 11-5(a) & (b), Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, the following findings, which will be presented to the committee as outlined herein, show the particulars wherein the petition is not sufficient. The Parents Against Irradiation committee is hereby notified that pursuant to the Section 11-5, Article XI, Hawaii County Charter: 1. If a majority of the committee elects to amend the petition, you must notify the Clerk. If not, you are hereby notified that the Clerk shall present this certificate to the County Council at its next meeting on Wednesday, August 5, 1998, at which f time you may request that the County Council approve or reject the certificate or substitute its own determination of sufficiency of the petition by resolution. You are hereby notified that the review actions of the County Council shall be final. 2. The committee may elect to file a supplementary petition upon additional papers within ten days following receipt of this certificate. Pursuant to Section 1-29, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the date of receipt is to be excluded when computing the ten day period and if the tenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, it shall also be excluded. The above is based on the applicable law, the documents received, the evaluation of the documents conducted by my staff and the following findings. Findings 1. The sufficiency of the petition was determined based on the provisions of Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, the basic procedures and policies used in 1988 to evaluate the Hapuna Beach Initiative the last previous initiative measure which was placed on the ballot, a 1988 opinion from the Corporation Counsel, a review of federal law relating to social security numbers, verbal instructions from the Office of Information Practices of the State of Hawaii, a June 30, 1998 letter from the Corporation Counsel, and the documents submitted. Further, every signature line was evaluated, first, by computer, and then manually by members of this office. 2. On June 19, 1998, at or about 1:30 pm, The Parents Against Irradiation submitted an initiative petition, consisting of more than 1,088 pages addressed to the Council assembled as one instrument, containing the full text of the ordinance proposed by the committee. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated into this certificate by reference. The date of submission was at least forty-eight hours prior to the regularly scheduled County Council meeting on July 1, 1998. -2- 3. Parents Against Irradiation is comprised of five members who are qualified voters of the County and signers of the petition: Name Date/Page Signed Petition Naomi Cohen September 21, 1997/page 1021 Mark Cohen, M.D. September 21, 1997/page 1021 Julie Jacobsen September 21, 1997/page 1021 Donnalyn Johns September 21, 1997/page 1021 Susan Gilbert September 21, 1997/page 1021 Lorraine Sonoda-Fogel September 21, 1997/page 1021 Susan Gilbert, an original member of the committee, passed away on April 24, 1998, and was replaced by Lorraine Sonoda-Fogel. 4. Each signature page of the petition indicated the names and addresses of the members of the petitioners' committee and the address to which all notices could be sent, Post Office Box 467, Papaikou, Hawaii 96781. Each signature page contained a space for each signer to provide their name, signature, residence address, social security number and date of signing. A page of the petition, attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated into this certificate, is submitted as a sample page (with the information relating to the signers of that page omitted). 5. The pages were on papers of uniform size and style and assembled as one instrument. The instrument was submitted and reviewed in the presence of the members of the committee in a proceeding open to the public and press. Pursuant to Section 11-4(a)(3), Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, which states: petitions which reasonably comply with this subsection (a) shall be accepted by the clerk without delay (emphasis added) the pages deemed acceptable were received for processing. 6. Of the pages submitted, 1,088 pages were accepted after it was determined that each set of pages was accompanied by an Affidavit executed by the circulator of the pages attesting to the effect that the person circulated a set of papers, each page bears a stated number -3- 0 of signatures, each signature was affixed in the circulator's presence and each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. A copy of one of the Affidavits is attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated into this certificate by reference. 7. The 1,088 pages were processed only after it was determined, in the presence of members of the committee, in the proceeding which was open to the public, that a copy of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit "A") was stapled to each page at the time of signing. 8. A number of pages were returned to the committee at that time and not processed because the pages were from another petition proposing a referendum. 9. After reviewing Section 11-2(c), Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, and after reviewing the procedure and policy used by this office in 1988, it is determined that the committee needs 7,346 valid signatures to be deemed sufficient based on the following computation: Votes Cast for Mayor in 1996 Candidate Number Adler 391 Anderson---------------------------------------------- 393 Bonk ------------------------------------------------16,659 Rath -------------------------------------------------11,724 Yamashiro -----------------------------------------19,807 Total ------------------------------------------------48,974 x 15% = 7,346 In 1996, there were 1,460 "blank" ballots which contained no vote for any mayoral candidate and 30 "over vote" ballots which contained votes for more than one candidate for mayor. In 1988, the "blank" and "over" votes were not counted in computing the total necessary to place the Hapuna Beach initiative on the ballot. 10. The 1,088 signature pages accepted contained 10,050 signatures. Of those signatures, an initial computerized check indicated that 6,154 signatures were accompanied by -4- s the correct social security number of a duly registered Hawaii County voter. Those signatures were preliminarily deemed valid. 11. A subsequent manual review, in accordance the basic procedures and policies used in 1988 to determine the sufficiency of the initiative petition relating to Hapuna Beach, was conducted. The manual review included but was not limited to the following actions: a. The information in the column entitled "Date" was checked to confirm that the signer indicated a date of signing. Persons who did not provide the information had their signatures invalidated (for example, some of the signers on one page listed their date of birth). Also persons who were not registered voters on the date of signing or for whom we did not receive, prior to validation, a voter registration affidavit executed prior to or contemporaneously with the petition signing, were invalidated as having a "prior signature date." The date check was made of every signature deemed valid. b. If the computerized check indicated that the name and social security number did not match, voter registration files were searched to determine if the name on the petition corresponded to a duly registered Hawaii County voter. If so, then the social security numbers on the petition and in the voter registration file were examined to discover the reason for the discrepancy. In those cases in which it was determined that numbers had been transposed or a minor discrepancy was probably the result of a difficult to read number, the signature was validated. Also, a check was conducted to determine if the voter's name had changed or if the voter pro- vided an incomplete name (initials only) or a nickname. -5- C. Signatures not accompanied by a social security number were labeled "duplicate" in the computerized check. We compared every name (as best as we could read it), not accompanied by a social security number, to our computerized voter information files. If it was determined that the name matched the name of a duly registered Hawaii County voter, and if the address provided matched the address in our files, the signature was deemed valid (assuming it was properly dated.) It should be noted that the Corporation Counsel issued an opinion in 1988 with regard to the Hapuna Beach initiative which prohibits the invalidation of a signature merely because it is unaccompanied by a social security number. The opinion is based on federal law which supersedes the County Charter. d. A further procedure was employed if a signature was not accompanied by a social security number, however it matched the name of a person registered to vote in Hawaii County but the address provided in the petition differed from that in voter registration files. I am informed and believe that generally such addresses are different because the voters have moved since registration and have not yet informed our office of the change. (A voter may report the change as late as on election day. It has been our office's experience that roughly 10,000 voters change addresses during an election year and on election day alone approximately 400 voters report new addresses.) There is a high likelihood that automatically+jecting such signatures would result in denying the participation in the petition process by some duly registered Hawaii County voters. Once our staff determined that the name provided on the petition corresponded to the name of a duly registered Hawaii County -6- F voter, the signature on the petition was compared to that contained in our voter registration files. If the signature appeared to be genuine based on the comparison, it was deemed valid. This was done for every signature which was: 1) matched to the name of a Hawaii County voter; 2) not accompanied by a social security number; 3) stated a different address in the petition from that in our voter registration files; and 4) which we validated. No evidence of fraud or forgery was found by the elections staff. A total of 106 signatures were preliminarily validated by this process. (The validated signatures were subject to a further check to prevent duplicate validations.) e. Further, 820 randomly selected signatures of the 10,050 submitted were compared to those on file. No evidence to indicate fraud or forgery was found. A comparison of every signature is not required by the County Charter. It is not believed to be conducted by any other county in processing initiative petitions. It is not possible given the limitations of time, staff and technology and it is not conducted by County or State elections officials to validate nomination petitions. 12. Pursuant to Section 11-4(d), signers had until 4:30 pm, Monday, July 6, 1998, to file a written request with my office requesting that their signature be withdrawn. Six requests were received by that deadline. 13. Based on the review of the signatures submitted, the voter registration information on file and the applicable law, I find the following relating to the validity of the signatures submitted: -7- s Signatures submitted 10,050 Less: "Not on File" (NOF) Name and social security number do not match Hawaii County voter. Manual check confirmed "no match". -1,481 "Duplicate" (DUP) (1) Computer determined person signed more than once or (2) signer did not provide social security number and manual check confirmed that name on petition did not match Hawaii County voter. Computer read all names without social security number as a "duplicate". -1,094 "No signature date" (NSD) -75 "Prior signature date" (PSD) -70 Signature missing -22 Signature incomplete -2 Signature illegible -1 Inactive voter -34 "Wrong County" - Not Hawaii County voter -279 Withdrawals -6 "Wrong name" Social security number matched Hawaii County voter but name did not match. -2 Final duplicate check invalidations Manual review all 3 ,583 "not on file" or "duplicates" indicated 1,008 possibily valid. A final manual check compared social security numbers of such NOF & DUP with that of previously validated signatures. Manual check eliminated duplications. -143 Plus: "Wrong Social Security Number" - validated Signer's name on petition matched Hawaii County voter but social security number originally misread or contained minor transposition or other error. Manual check discovered error and confirmed no duplication. +35 Valid signatures 6,876 (68.41% of 10,050 submitted) -8- 14. A representative of the committee will be invited by telephone, upon the signing and filing of this certificate, to pick-up a copy of this certificate. This certificate will be mailed to Post Office Box 467, Papaikou, Hawaii 96781 by regular mail and by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Copies of this certificate will be made available to the public and press on the day it is signed and filed, after an initial attempt is made to contact the committee by telephone. DATED at Hilo, Hawaii is -Y-A, day of July, 1998. 4,1111~ Donald Ikeda, Clerk County of Hawaii -9- S Exhibit "A" Certificate of Sufficiency Proposed ordinance EXHIBIT "A" INITIATIVE - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 8, SECTIONS 14-45(a) (5) AND 14-45(a) (6) (A) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE COUNTY OF HAWAII - STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 14-45(a)(5) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE BY ADDING THE WORDS "but shall not. be limited to" TO THE END OF SECTION (5) AND BY ADDING SUBSECTION (D) TO STATE "Any quantity of radioactive material used in commercial irradiation facilities," AND AMENDING SECTION 14-45 (a) (6) (A) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY DELETING THE WORDS "or commercial devices, processes Or facilities" THEREFROM. BE IT ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION I. The Hawaii County Code, Chapter 14, Article 8, Section 14-45(a)(5) is hereby amended as follows: The present text which states: "(5) The term `radioactive material or substance' shall include:" shall be amended to state: "(5) The term 'radioactive material or substance' shall include but shall not be limited to:" Subsection (D) shall be added to state as follows: "(D) Any quantity of radioactive material used in commercial irradiation facilities." SECTION 2. The Hawaii county code, Chapter 14, Article 8, Section 14-45 (a) (6) (A) is hereby amended to delete the words "or commercial devices, processes, or facilities,." SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. ?rtitiyf•Y?~1~~yr~4~~~~~rMr 1~1l1rr~~~rlyr lryr4 Exhibit "B" Certificate of Sufficiency Sample Affidavit Signature Page o RECEIVED " '98 JUN 19 ° 1 2 p FF.~ mp~ o " u a Q s = ° OFF. OF CCCN-'f -LC K w d 2 E a o •v ELECT;UN `I'•'. 7 u O O " O COUNT) :JI fM` 5 ram B >F v ,a N z w _ s O u u p c~ F5 O U ~ m w u Z ~ c o o •c o 'D a Q SO U a a 'q Ut9 w 0 M r 0. a .C O L. "1 " p6", t'n " b 0 W fC~'-'+' 7 O 0.a' - 0 rG Y t~ ^~a C) En C)Fa aw ~O u n s a Q _ o zz~ U Q L atyy O Q o. a o~ Q o tail t=n r~ Q _ 3 v ' A uZi ~~lw-O tea' e~'S ua E a Q U-0O m u ^ > E v w MO x Z uLU ptnw o~.°T o 0Cc x - F w x Y O $ O L 0. CL" a FF p 3 W V 3 U LL = V 9 z 3 A O O O ~ O o m u 73 to c O Q o~w aw0 0 °a ~'a?L zr- a mOOz n 0 o u o L CUU-~UL- 0.9 ` - 3 _ F im LI c n n u ~ go U tnoIn tay•-•" cQ-Np u QzLU o OC Q ; Z t~ rn Uzym>>0 FuvCD '0 a woc uo ,cr Z ~v O p.~ u~ Z!- o 0 a v`o3gz x ~ ba m Q o h Q Q O= O F ti u' A. Z 0Z~wF p Y-J.§ ~a.x LL) O vxFzzp -t !w- F Q`tnw `m t- a O W -5 u O > LL) F- ~tzivl"tn m w °ca F E -J uzi •u o ° Em o0 m' u 0O.C O Uwmz E : F vltnw wU. E as a za 2 to -Y Exhibit "C" Certificate of Sufficiency Sample Affidavit Which Accompanied Sets of Signature Pages RECEVE EXHIBIT "C" 98 19 OFF. 0t AFFIDAVIT STATE OF HAWAII j ss: COUNTY OF I-LAWAIJ) AJ Rv\Z PC~G_~ being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: 1. That your Affant is a person over the age of 21 years and is a resident of tha County and State of Hawaii; 2. That this Affidavit is based upon the personal Icnowledge of the Afftant and Affiant is competent to testify as to the truth hereof, 3. That your Affiant personally circulated the attached papers, consisting of the full text of the proposed form of the ordinance whose enactment is sought, a copy of the current Hawaii County Code, Chapter 14. Article 8 and the Initiative Petition including -0-, pages of signatures numbered 13-7 - 4. That on each signature page attached hereto 'thete are signatures and that a total of --JL signature pages are attached hereto, for a total of oZ signatures; 5. That each signature affixed on all of the pages attached hereto was affixed in your Afftant's presence; and 6. That each signature on every signature page attached hereto is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. FURTHER AFFIANT SAY ETH NAUGHT. SUBSCRIBED AND WORN to before me this dad of 1998. Notary Public, State of Hawaii Third Judicial District tiny commission expires 7;~OOo t ~4 '98 JUL 23 = UFF, u= : _ THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLE COUNTY OF HAWAII In the Matter of the ) Initiative Petition of ) CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY; PARENTS AGAINST ) EXHIBIT "A" IRRADIATION. ) CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY Pursuant to Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, the initiative petition submitted by the PARENTS AGAINST IRRADIATION, entitled: "Initiative Petition - Amending Chapter 14, Article 8 (Nuclear Energy) of the Hawaii County Code", and amended by a supplemental filing on July 20, 1998, is hereby certified and deemed to be sufficient. The original petition was deemed to have been insufficient on July 7, 1998 on the grounds that the petition "is signed by less than the required number of qualified voters of the County." As explained in the Certificate of Insufficiency, the petition must contain 7,346 valid signatures to be deemed sufficient. The petition as filed on June 19, 1998 was found to have contained 6,876 valid signatures, 470 less than required. The petition as amended is deemed to contain not less than 7,852 signatures of qualified voters of the County. This determination is made after a computerized and manual review of 1,025 of the approximately 2,100 additional signatures submitted. The reviews found that the supplemental filing contains not less than 976 additional valid signatures. The number of validated signatures will be increased when all remaining additional signatures are reviewed. The Parents Against Irradiation committee is hereby notified that pursuant to the Section 11-5, Article XI, Hawaii County Charter the Clerk shall present this certificate to the County Council at its next meeting on Wednesday, August 5, 1998. 'The above determination of sufficiency is based on the documents received, the evaluation of the documents conducted by my staff and the following findings. Findings I . On June 19, 1998, The Parents Against Irradiation submitted an initiative petition consisting of more than 1,088 pages addressed to the Council, assembled as one instrument, containing the full text of the ordinance proposed by the committee. Pursuant to Section 11-5(a), Hawaii County Charter, a Certificate of Insufficiency was issued on July 7, 1998. It was determined that the petition contained the valid signatures of 6,876 Hawaii County qualified voters. 2. On July 10, 1998, the Certificate of Insufficiency was received by the Committee via certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. 3. On July 13, 1998, a majority of the committee informed the County Clerk by letter, that pursuant to Section 11-5(a), Hawaii County Code, the committee elected to submit an amended petition. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated into this certificate. 4. On July 20, 1998, the tenth day following its receipt of the Certificate of Insufficiency, the committee submitted 250 pages (identical in format to the 1,088 pages accepted on June 19), assembled as one document, containing additional signatures. 5. Each signature page of the petition indicated the names and addresses of the members of the petitioners' committee and the address to which all notices could be sent, Post Office Box 467, Papaikou, Hawaii 96781. Each signature page contained a space for each signer to provide their name, signature, residence address, social security number and date of signing. -2- 6. The pages were on papers of uniform size and style and assembled as one instrument. The instrument was submitted and reviewed in the presence of the members of the committee in a proceeding open to the public and press. Pursuant to Section 114(a)(3), Article XI, Hawaii County Charter, which states: petitions which reasonably comply with this subsection (a) shall be accepted by the clerk without delay (emphasis added) the pages deemed acceptable were received for processing. 7. The 250 pages were accepted after it was determined that each set of pages was accompanied by an Affidavit executed by the circulator of the pages attesting to the effect that the person circulated a set of papers, each page bears a stated number of signatures, each signature was affixed in the circulator's presence and each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. 8. The 250 pages were processed after it was determined that a copy of the proposed ordinance was stapled to each page at the time of signie. 9. The 250 signature pages contained approximately 2,100 signatures. Of those signatures, an initial computerized check determined that 1,025 signatures were accompanied by the correct social security number of a duly registered Hawaii County voter. Those signatures were preliminarily deemed valid. 10. A further manual review of the apparently valid signatures was conducted. Each signature line which corresponded to an apparently valid signature was reviewed to determine if the name and social security number indicated by the computerized check matched the information provided by the signer. The information in the column entitled "Date" was checked to confirm that the signer indicated a proper date of signing. Those signatures found to have matching information and which had an acceptable signing date were validated. 11. Based on the computerized check and the manual review it is determined that the supplemental filing contains not less than 976 additional valid signatures. (The presently -3- unvalidated 49 signatures from the batch of 1,025 will be further reviewed.) 12. All of the 976 additional validated signatures were accompanied by a social security number. A further review of the remaining additional signatures is presently being conducted employing the procedures used to determine the insufficiency of the original petition. That review will increase the number of valid additional signatures. 13. The 976 additional validated signatures represent 207% of the 470 signatures which the petition as filed was deemed to lack in order to be certified as sufficient. 14. A supplemental exhibit to this Certificate of Sufficiency will be filed upon the final count of signatures. The exhibit will contain a breakdown of the valid and invalid signatures; said breakdown will be displayed in the same format used in the Certificate of Insufficiency (page 8). 15. A representative of the committee will be invited by telephone, upon the signing and filing of this certificate, to pick-up a copy of this certificate. This certificate will be mailed to Post Office Box 467, Papaikou, Hawaii 96781 by regular mail and by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Copies of this certificate will be made available to the public and press on the day it is signed and filed, after an initial attempt is made to contact the committee by telephone. DATED at Hilo, Hawaii is 3 r`/ day of July, 1998. Donald Ikeda, Clerk County of Hawaii -4- ~,~£~l'IS,41~,47~257 9.~,4'D,~l?`1Q7Z ; P. 0. Sox 467 ;D,4pxO1--< t;WA79"' PM 4 17 808- 934-799f, July 13, 1998 COI. i\~i Dear Mr. Ikeda: Pursuant to Section 11-5 (b) of the Hawaii County Charter, a majority of the petitioners' committee for the initiative petition to amend Chapter 14, Article 8 (Nuclear Energy) of the Hawaii County Code, have elected to submit an amended petition. We intend to submit the amended petition to your office on Monday, July 20 at 3:00 PM. Thank you. Sincerely, Naomi Cohen ( Mark Cohen Julie Jacobson Exhibit "A" Certificate of Sufficiency 0Vos y Stephen K. Yamashiro Richard Wurdeman Mayor A - Corporation Counsel OrNr'~f Y aixnfV of Cttftiaii OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4262 • (808) 961.8251 • Fax (808) 961-8622 16 July 1998 Mr. Donald Ikeda County Clerk 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 9672 RE: INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Dear Mr. Ikeda: On July 8, 1998, you pointed out an incongruity in the Hawaii County Charter (HCC), which had apparently not been noted before. Presently, the section relating to County Council Action on initiative petitions, HCC §11-6, required that they be processed pursuant to Section 3-9 and 3-11 of HCC, relating to resolution and emergency ordinances respectively. In earlier editions of the HCC, what is now Section 3-8 (Actions of the Council) was codified as Section 3-9. What is now 3-10 (Ordinance) was 3-11. (HCC 1968, 1980 editions). It appears that in rearranging the order of the sections in Article 3 for the publication of the current 1991 edition, the editor neglected to note that these sections were referred to in other Articles. Thus, my conclusion is that notwithstanding the incongrous results of the editing error, §11-6 should be construed to refer to §3-8 and §3-10, as codified in the present Charter. Sincerely, R~~~ WURDEMAN Corporation Counsel RDW:19011,bre