Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP GRC 014 04/17/2012 2010-2012OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY Meeting: Council — lune 19, 2012 Action: Filed on 3rd reading (Draft 2) due to vote count of 5 ayes and 4 noes (plus, Ikeda, Onishi and Yoshimoto); Charter amendment requires 6 ayes or 2/3 of the entire membership, and 3 readings. I" rdg: May 2, 2012 (Draft 2) — 9 ayes Public hrg.: May 14, 2012 2nd rdg.: May 15, 2012 (Draft 2) — 7 ayes; 2 noes (Ikeda, Onishi); 1 absent (Pilago) Postponed: June 8, 2012 Re: Bill 211; Comm. 627 (2010-2102 term); GRC-14 not adopted) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DATE: April 17, 2012 Re: Comm. 627/Bill No. 211 PLACE: Council Chambers Hilo, Hawaii TIME: 9:58 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Governmental Relations, to which was referred Bill No. 211, reports as follows: Bill 211, transmitted by Council Chair Dominic Yagong via Communication No. 627, dated March 12, 2012, initiates an amendment to the Hawaii County Charter (2010) by repealing Article VI, Chapter 5, and adding a new article to provide that the Corporation Counsel shall be an elected official of the County. At the March 20, 2012 Governmental Relations Committee meeting, Mr. Yagong stated that this Charter amendment, should it be adopted by voters in the 2012 General Election, would not go into effect until the 2014 General Election. At that time, the Corporation Counsel would be an elected position for two years. Starting in 2016, and from then on, it would become a four-year term to be co -terminus with the Mayor's term. This would be consistent with the Prosecuting attorney, who is also elected every four years. The reasoning behind this Charter amendment is that there are times when the Corporation Counsel is caught between a rock and a hard place having to represent both the Legislative and Executive Branch of the County government. Mr. Yoshimoto agreed it would be a good idea to put this measure to the island voters, and suggested staggering the term rather than making it co -terminus with the Mayor's term to make the position even less political. Mr. Yoshimoto also suggested making the term six years, like the Legislative Auditor, because of the enormous responsibility of the job. This would allow that person to focus on their work and not have to campaign every four years. Mr. Yoshimoto asked Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida to comment. Mr. Ashida agreed that it takes a lot of work to be involved in the campaign process, and there are benefits as well. Because it is the exclusive function of the Corporation Counsel to serve the County, most work takes place in the offices; so getting out in the community would be good. Ms. Ford supported the bill, and had some additional recommendations. Ms. Ford agreed with Mr. Yoshimoto's suggestion regarding staggering the terms so as not to coincide with the Mayor's term. She also recommended that language be added to the bill that would prevent the Corporation Counsel from being a part of the Mayor's cabinet, so the position would not be tied to the Administration. Ms. Ford also recommended that requirements be added stating the candidate must have a license to practice before the Hawaii State Supreme Court and have a minimum number of six years in practice as an attorney. GRC Report No. 14 GRC-14 Page 2 April 17, 2012 Mr. Ashida commented that given the complexities of civil law, experience would be a very important factor; however, it should not serve as a barrier for a person to pursue their constitutional right to seek office. He stated that there are certain requirements to qualify to be appointed as a district court judge, and the comparison would be a good analogy. Mr. Onishi asked if Mr. Yagong used the Office of Prosecuting Attorney, which is an elected position, as an example. Mr. Yagong stated that the Prosecutor doesn't have a minimum number of years in practice as a requirement to run for office. Mr. Onishi's concern was that if the requirement was added for Corporation Counsel, whether there would be a liability issue. Mr. Onishi stated that he does not feel it is necessary to make it an elected position. Mr. Yagong moved to postpone the item until April 3, 2012 to give him time to consider amending the bill regarding the length of the term and the experience requirement. Comm. 627/Bill No. 211 was postponed to the April 3, 2012 Governmental Relations Committee meeting. At the April 3, 2012 meeting, Mr. Yagong moved to postpone Comm. 627/Bill No. 211 to the April 17, 2012 Governmental Relations Committee meeting. At the April 17, 2012 meeting, Mr. Yagong stated that he took the recommendations regarding staggering the terms as well as requiring certain qualifications into consideration; however, after talking with members of the public, decided not to bring forth any amendments to Bill No. 211. Mr. Hoffmann stated his support and understands the comments and concerns regarding qualifications. He suggested passing this measure out of Committee and addressing the concerns as the Bill moves forward to Council. Mr. Yoshimoto stated it would allow better continuity to stagger the terms, ensure independence, and prevent mass turn -over. Council Members Blas and Ikeda generally supported Bill No. 211, but had some concerns and reservations, and voted "kdnalua " twice. Your Committee on Governmental Relations is in accord with the purpose and.intent of Bill No. 211 and recommends its passage on first reading. ke Respectfully submitted, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS '0 K. A L PIL, CHAIR GRC PORT NO. 14 ADOPTED: AYES NOES A&E EX BLAS X FORD X HOFFMANN X IKEDA X ONISHI X PILAGO X SMART X YAGONG X YOSHIMOTO X Respectfully submitted, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS '0 K. A L PIL, CHAIR GRC PORT NO. 14 ADOPTED: