Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0482.015 2010-2012 Joseph K. Kamelamela Attorney at Law - `Y tI S 41-liwipolena Road Hilo, Hawaii 96720 July 31, 2012 Dominic Yagong, Chairperson, and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Suite Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chair Yagong and Members of the Hawaii County Council: RE: Public Testimony Regarding Bill 152 (Draft 5) — Initiates an Amendment to the Hawaii County Charter (2010) by Amending Article III, Section 3-6, and Article VI, Chapter 6-5.5, Relating to Special Counsel and Council Staff Attorneys On July 18, 2012, on my own behalf, I submitted a written statement in opposition to Bill 152 (Draft 4) to this Honorable Hawaii County Council ("Council"). On July 19, 2012, I testified, on my own behalf, at a public hearing before this County Council in opposition to Bill 152 (Draft 5).1 All of my statements in my July 18 letter and during my July 19 testimony to the Council are to be incorporated in this written statement. I submit this personal supplemental written statement in opposition to Bill 152 (Draft 5) on several grounds. First, there is no reason to create two legal departments during this time of economic hard-times. Second, there is no justification for the proposed process of having the Council staff attorneys be "Special Counsel" and proposing different standards of hiring "Special Counsel" for the Legislative and Executive branches of County government. And third, the awkwardness of the definitional section illustrates the arbitrariness of the proposed Charter amendments. 1 Prior to testifying on July 19, 2012, I perused Draft 5 and still concluded that there was no legitimate reason for the proposal as a whole, that it lacked transparency and that it would continue to create unnecessary confusion. 1 Comm. No. 2. IS Ref.To: Ref. Date AUG 0 1 I. Introduction. The draft ordinance proposes amendments to two sections of the Hawaii County Charter ("Charter"): (1) Section 3-6, pertaining to the organization of the Council, and its officers and employees; and (2) Section 6-5.5, pertaining to Special Counsel. The Charter amendments raise many troubling issues relating to the role, qualifications, and responsibilities of a newly created corps of Council staff attorneys, and the Corporation Counsel. The Charter amendments further complicates the process in which this County hires Special Counsel. II. No Reason to Create A Separate Legal Department for Just the Council. A. Corporation Counsel is Chief Legal Advisor and Legal Representative. For over 40 years, the Corporation Counsel has been the Chief legal advisor and legal representative of the Council, County and its officers and employees. Section 6-5.2 of the Charter states: The corporation counsel shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor with the approval of the council. The corporation counsel shall be an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. Section 6-5.3 of the Charter further states: The corporation counsel shall be the chief legal advisor and legal representative of all county agencies, the council and all officers and employees in matters related to their official powers and duties. The corporation counsel shall represent the county in all civil legal proceedings and shall perform all other services incident to the office as may be required by law. The corporation counsel shall, however, be prohibited from representing any elected officer in impeachment proceedings. The language of the current Charter, that explicitly states that the Corporation Counsel also advise and represent the Council, is similar to the language in the Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS"), that sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. Under Section 26-7, HRS, the Attorney General administers and renders "state legal services, including furnishing of written legal opinions to the governor, legislature, and such state departments and officers as the governor may direct," and "represent[s] the State in all civil actions in which the State is a party." 2 From a governmental organizational perspective, it makes sense that you have only one legal department representing the interest of the governmental entity, which would also include its different branches, departments and officers and employees. The best way to protect the interest of the public would be to have only one legal department provide its legal opinion based on legal research, analysis and proposed courses of actions. For this County, having two different legal opinions on any matter, one from the Corporation Counsel and one from any of the council staff attorneys, will lead to more confusion. The public interest would be best served by determining the lawfulness of a particular course of action taken by the officers and employees of this governmental entity. For this County, the County's Charter Commission in 1968 and 1969 ("Charter Commission"), studied and discussed the best form of governance for this County while considering the duties and responsibilities of the Corporation Counsel. The Charter Commission determined that the work of the Corporation Counsel is administrative in nature. Charter Commission Minutes of the February 22, 1969 Meeting, at 32-34. And its members recognized that there is a "complicated and complex system of law" that would be handled and managed by the Corporation Counsel. Id. The Charter Commission further emphasized that the appointment by the Mayor and confirmation by the Council would provide adequate governmental checks and balances, since the Corporation Counsel is their legal advisor and legal representative as well. Id.; Charter Commission Minutes of the March 3, 1968 Meeting and Charter Commission Minutes of the January 3, 1968 Meeting, at 19-20. Lastly, it is expected that the Corporation Counsel will not support anything that is, or has the appearance of being, illegal, unethical or unsafe. Just as important, any legal opinion by the Corporation Counsel will be consistent, and will not change because of whom, Council or Mayor, requests a legal opinion. B. Council Staff Attorneys' Roles will Create Confusion and a Mess. The Charter amendments propose the hiring of "council staff attorneys" to serve the Council with the following duties and responsibilities: 1. Council staff attorneys may advise the Council independently of the Corporation Counsel without limitation, and may represent the Council in legal disputes with the executive branch. 2. In the event that council staff attorneys are authorized by a resolution and with a two-thirds vote of the council's entire membership to represent the Council in litigation, those council staff attorneys shall be deemed to have the status of"special counsel" for the purpose of that litigation. 3 In accordance with the Charter amendments, the council staff attorneys will serve as legal advisors to and legal representatives to the council. They may be expected to render formal legal opinions, approve written contracts as to form and legality, approve bills for ordinances as to form and legally, appear before courts of law or administrative agencies on behalf of the council, and prepare and file pleadings with courts of law or other adjudicatory bodies. These Charter amendments, however, will create more confusion and unmanageable situations. 1. Council staff attorneys only represent the Council. Somewhat confusing, the council staff attorneys only represent the Council. These attorneys will be able to form an attorney-client relationship with only the Council, and apparently not having any attorney-client relationship with Council members, officers or other employees. Accordingly, their restricted interactions with other Council officers and employees are governed by, and subject to, those Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct ("HRPC") generally applicable to attorney-client relationships.2 Further, communications between the council staff attorneys and other County officers and employees, including those within the Council, are not protected under the attorney-client privilege (except possibly for communications with lawyers from the Office of the Corporation Counsel, or with special counsel retained by the County, that are made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services).3 With the council staff attorneys "advising the council independently of the corporation council without limitation," what will be the role, duties and responsibilities of the Corporation Counsel at the Council committee and general public meetings? If the council staff attorneys will advise the Council, will there be a need for the Corporation Counsel to remain at those meetings? And because the Corporation Counsel will not be responsible for the quality of the legal work for the council staff attorneys, it would appear to be a waste of County resources to have both the Corporation Counsel and council staff attorneys present at the same Council committee and general public meetings. And will the council staff attorneys, who only represent the Council, be allowed to attend and participate at the executive sessions requested by the Corporation Counsel to discuss any matter regarding the liabilities, duties or responsibilities relating to the County as a whole? Under the proposed Charter amendments, the Corporation Counsel will continue to represent the interest of the County as a whole. Under these circumstances, the council staff attorneys should not attend and participate in the executive sessions because they do not represent the interest of the County as a whole. 2 HCPC Rules 1.1-1.17. 3 See Rule 503, Hawaii Rules of Evidence. 4 2. No requirement of council staff attorneys being licensed. The position and Office of the Corporation Counsel are established by Charter.4 Section 6-5.3 of the Charter requires that the Corporation Counsel "be an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai`i." For the Assistant Corporation Counsel, Section 6-5.4 provides: The assistant corporation counsel shall be appointed by the corporation counsel and may be removed by the corporation counsel. The assistant corporation counsel shall be an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. For the council staff attorneys, who may "advise the council independently of the corporation counsel without limitation," there is no requirement that any of them "be an attorney licensed to practice and in good standing before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai`i." Without such a requirement, these attorneys might engage in the unauthorized practice of law.5 Moreover, it is a public disservice not to require that, at the least, the supervisory council staff attorney must have the same license to practice and in good standing requirements as that of the Corporation Counsel and Assistant Corporation Counsel. Anything less, would create serious public concerns as to the validity and credibility of an opinion from a council staff attorney that would be contrary to an opinion from the Corporation Counsel, who remains the chief legal advisor and legal representative of the Council. Furthermore, a real concern that will arise in having no licensing requirement for any of the council staff attorney would be the political influence, or other improper purpose, that the Chair could exercise upon the "legal opinion" from any of the council staff attorneys. Upon the Council hiring of its council staff attorneys, the Charter amendments propose only that these attorneys "report to the council chairperson." There is no governmental "checks and balances" under the proposed Charter amendments to prevent "improvident conduct by the legislative branch." Unlike the Corporation Counsel, who is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council, the Charter amendments merely and singly propose that only the Council may hire the council staff attorneys. 4 Article VI, Chapter 5 of the Charter. 5 See HRS, §§605-2 and 605-14; see, also, HRPC Rule 5.4(d) ("Except as otherwise permitted by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, a lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if: ... (3) a non-lawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer."). 5 3. Charter amendments would conflict with existing Charter provision regarding the role and responsibilities of the Corporation Counsel. The Charter amendments would authorize and direct the council staff attorneys to serve as legal advisors and legal representatives of the Council. However, the Charter amendments would not change an existing Charter provision, that is, Section 6- 5.3 of the Charter, which states, in part, that the Corporation Counsel is to be the "chief legal advisor and legal representatives of all county agencies, the council and all officers and employees in matter related o their official powers and duties." Under the Charter amendments, it is further unclear what role or services would be expected of the Corporation Counsel by the Council. Corporation Counsel has traditionally performed duties such as: attending meetings of the Council and its meetings; providing oral and written legal advice to the Council, Council members, and Council staff; drafting, reviewing, and approving as to form and legality, bills for ordinances and certain resolutions; and representing the Council in litigation. If council staff attorneys are designated as "legal advisors to and legal representatives of the council," some or all of these duties could presumably be undertaken by the council staff attorneys, though the Charter amendments are silent as to who would decide such issues, and how and when. 4. The Charter amendments would make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold any particular officer or office within the County accountable for the overall provision of legal services and legal advice. Under the Charter amendments, council staff attorneys would remain employees of the Council. The council staff attorneys would not be appointed by the Corporation Counsel, and their assignments and work product would not be overseen by the Corporation Counsel. Corporation Counsel would have little or no input as to the timing, quality, or substance of legal services performed by council staff attorneys. Therefore, Corporation Counsel would not be accountable for their acts, opinions, or omissions, even though the Charter would still describe the Corporation Counsel as the County's "chief legal advisor and legal representative." Furthermore, council staff attorneys would not be accountable to any officers or agencies of the executive branch for the timing, quality, or substance of legal opinions or legal services performed on behalf of the Council. Indeed, council staff attorneys would not have attorney-client relationships with anyone other than the Council. 6 5. It is unclear under the Charter amendments whether the council staff attorneys would owe a duty of loyalty solely to the Council or whether they also owe a duty of loyalty to the County as a whole. In general, a lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.6 However, when the client is a governmental organization: [D]efining precisely the identity of the client and prescribing the resulting obligations of such lawyers may be more difficult Although in some circumstances the client may be a specific agency, it is generally the government as a whole.' A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of its officers or other constituents, subject, however, to HRPC Rule 1.7, pertaining to conflict of interest.8 HRPC Rule 1.13(f) states, in part: If a government lawyer knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the government is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the lawyer's representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the government or the public, or a violation of law which reasonably might be imputed to the government, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the government or the public. (Emphasis added.) The current Charter provision recognizes that Corporation Counsel owes duties to the County government as a whole when it states: "The corporation counsel shall be the chief legal advisor and legal representatives of all county agencies, the council and all officers and employees in matter related to their official powers and duties." In contrast, the Charter amendments would describe the council staff attorneys' duties to the Council as to "advice the council," to "represent the council in legal disputes with the executive branch," and, when authorized, to "represent the council in litigation as a "special counsel." But those amendments omit any reference to the interests of the County as a whole. It is unclear, therefore, whether the council staff attorneys would owe their professional duties solely or primarily to the Council or whether such duties would also be owed to the County as a whole. Issues relating to a lawyer's duties are likely to arise anytime a lawyer has an organization for a client. 6 HRPC Rule 1.13(a). HRPC Rule 1.13, comment[7]. 8 HRPC Rule 1.13(e). 7 A comment to HRPC Rule 1.13 states: There are many times when the organization's interest may be or become adverse to those of one or more of its constituents. In such circumstances the lawyer should advise any constituent whose interest the lawyer finds adverse to that of the organization of the conflict or potential conflict of interest, that the lawyer cannot represent such constituent, and that such person may wish to obtain independent representation. Care must be taken to assure that the individual understands that, when there is such adversity of interest, the lawyer for the organization cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual, and that discussions between the lawyer for the organization and the individual may not be privileged.9 6. The Charter amendments would likely result in situations in which council staff attorneys and Corporation Counsel issued opinions that varied from each other in scope, detail, facts, legal analysis, and conclusions. If the Charter amendments were adopted, there would exist within the County two legal departments: Corporation Counsel and the council staff attorneys. Both would be charged with providing legal advice and legal representation, when necessary and appropriate, to the Council. As discussed previously, neither law department would supervise or report to the other. Under such an arrangement, it is very likely that the council staff attorneys and Corporation Counsel would, on occasion provide oral and written legal advice that differed from the advice rendered by the other in scope, tone, detail, factual assumptions, legal analysis, and conclusions. Even in the best of circumstances, and even assuming a degree of cooperation between the law departments, differences in legal advice and legal opinions would be inevitable given by the departments that would have different lawyers, supervisors, client representatives, sources of information, experience, levels of involvement, timing of involvement, and client representative's goals and interests. It is not at all clear how such differences would be reconciled, if at all. Ill. No Justification to have Special Counsel Charter Provision Changed. Section 6-5.5 of the Charter provides: The council may, by two-thirds vote of its entire membership, authorize the employment of special counsel for any special matter presenting a real necessity of such employment. Any such authorization shall specify the compensation, if any, to be paid for said services. 9 HRPC Rule 1.13, comment[8]. 8 With a few limited exceptions, the Council approves the hiring of Special Counsel by the required two-thirds vote of the entire membership of Council. See also Maui County Council v. Thompson, 84 Hawai'i 105, 108, 929 P.2d 1355, 1359 (1996) (The Maui County Council is expressly charged by the charter with the power to retain special counsel, a power that is restricted by the necessity of a two-thirds majority vote). Where there is a real necessity, such as a need for expertise in an area of law or conflict of interest including an opinion contrary to the Council as a whole, the Council can approve by a two-thirds vote the hiring of Special Counsel. Charter Commission Minutes of the November 9, 1967 Meeting, at 23-24; Charter Commission Minutes of the April 13, 1968 Meeting, at 9. Without any compelling justification, the proposed Charter amendments would drastically amend Section 6-5.5 in two ways. First, it will dispose of the "real necessity" requirement for hiring Special Counsel when employed for the legislative branch. And second, the new corps of council staff attorneys, by a two-thirds vote of the council's entire membership, could be deemed to be "special counsel" for the purpose of that litigation. Such a substantial change fails to recognize that the Council already has the power and authority to hire Special Counsel. So, there is no real need for the Charter amendments. Moreover, the proposed Charter amendments eliminate two important public protections. First, the current Charter provision ensures that Special Counsel will be hired when there is justification to do so, so that, our tax monies are not wasted and there is, in fact, a real need for Special Counsel. And second, the current Charter provision is a vital "governmental check and balance" against any "improvident conduct by the legislative and executive branches." The council member, who has introduced the proposed Charter amendments, has publicly stated three reasons for the proposed changes relating to the hiring of a Special Counsel and the Council authorizing, at times, the council staff attorneys being "Special Counsel" to represent it in litigation. One of the reasons for the change is the assertion that there have been lots of conflicts between the Mayor and the Council, and the Council came out on the losing end. However, there is no such evidence that there have been "lots of conflicts" triggering the need for Special Counsel. If that was in fact the case, the Council could have approved the hiring of Special Counsel for itself during the past twelve (12) years. But during the last twelve (12) years, the Council has never approved the hiring of Special Counsel to represent itself: obviously there has been no real necessity to do so. The council member's second reason for a new, untested process in hiring Special Counsel to represent the Council is the allegation that "for a long period of 9 time," the Council was unrepresented by the Corporation Counsel. There is no truth to this statement. Again, if the Council believed that the Corporation Counsel is not providing it legal advice or representation, it could have simply approved the hiring of Special Counsel by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the Council. But, the Council has not sought for the required approval for Special Counsel under those alleged circumstances by the council member introducing the Charter amendments. And the last reason by the council member for the Charter amendments regarding Special Counsel is that the City and County of Honolulu ("Honolulu") has something similar, and it has been operating well for the past twenty (20) years. So, what? This County is not a metropolitan area like Honolulu. We should not adopt any Charter amendment simply because another jurisdiction has it. There should be compelling reasons to enact Charter amendments that would dismantle a system of hiring Special Counsel that has worked well for over forty (40) years. More importantly, the Charter amendments will not improve our County's governance because, as previously argued, the proposed Charter amendments to have the council staff attorneys be "Special Counsels" will create unnecessary confusion and an untenable mess. IV. Definitional Section of the Charter Amendments Demonstrates Arbitrariness. The proposed definitional section is awkward. Instead of simply defining "without limitation" as being "without restraint or restriction," the introducer of the Charter amendments creates unnecessary verbiage. Perhaps, it is done to mislead the public that the Council must have this Charter change so that "Special Counsel" can be approve by it "without the concurrence, agreement, or assent of the Corporation Counsel or any member of the executive branch of the County"? But, the current Charter provision already explicitly provides that it is the Council, not the Mayor or Corporation Counsel, that approves the hiring of Special Counsel. Or, maybe, the definitional section could have been included to provide some legitimacy to the proposed Charter amendments? However, such a proposed definitional section, demonstrates the arbitrariness of the Charter amendments. V. Conclusion The proposed Charter amendments do not improve this County's governance. Instead, they will be creating another legal department within this County. Hence, in accordance with the Charter amendments, this County will have two legal departments: Corporation Counsel and council staff attorneys. This will cause unwarranted turmoil and chaos. 10 There is no compelling justification to have the Charter amendments. The current system is not broken. The Council already has the discretion to hire Special Counsel: It can do so, without having the concurrence, agreement or assent of the Corporation Counsel or anyone from the Executive Branch. The Charter amendments are arbitrary - lacking any clarity. I urge each member of this County Council to consider voting "no" for this bill. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Respectfully submitted, 10-SEP . KAMELAMELA Attachment: Bill 152 (Draft 05). 11 C or HAWAII :•: ' ' �\.- STATE OF HAWAII COUNTY OF BILL NO. 152 (DRAFT 5) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 3-6, AND ARTICLE VI,CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6-5.5, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER(2010 EDITION),RELATING TO SPECIAL COUNSEL AND COUNCIL STAFF ATTORNEYS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to initiate an amendment to the Hawai`i County Charter to grant the County Council the right to employ special counsel and Council staff attorneys without express limitation. SECTION 2. Article III, section 3-6 of the Hawai`i County Charter(2010 Edition) is amended to read as follows: "Section 3-6. Organization of the Council; Officers; Employees. (a) Definitions. For the purpose of this section,the following definitions apply: "Constituted authority" means the legislative, executive, and judicial departments officially and rightfully governing a municipality; properly appointed or elected under organic law, such as a constitution or charter. "Imperative authority"means an authority that is absolutely binding on a court. "Limitation" means the act of limiting;the state of being limited; a restriction. "Organic Law" means the body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government; fundamental law. "Primary authority" means the authority which issues directly from a law-making body; legislation and reports of litigated cases. "Without limitation" means that 1) since the Hawai`i County Charter established the council as a constituted authority, 2) the council members' election occurs under organic law, and 3) because the council's legislative, primary, and imperative authority is absolutely binding on a court of competent jurisdiction,then the council clearly and unmistakably has the right to engage council staff attorneys and special counsel without restraint or restriction, and without the concurrence, agreement, or assent of the corporation counsel or any member of the executive branch of the County of Hawai`i. [(a)](b)The council shall elect from among its members a chairperson and a vice chairperson, each of whom shall serve at its pleasure. Until such time as the chairperson and presiding officer shall be elected, the mayor shall preside at such meeting, provided that the mayor shall not have a vote. The chairperson shall preside at council meetings. If at any meeting the chairperson is not present or unable to act, the vice chairperson shall then preside. In the absence of the chairperson and vice chairperson, the council shall elect from among its members a temporary presiding officer. [(b)](c) The council shall appoint the county clerk which position shall be exempt from civil service laws and classifications. The county clerk shall: (1) Be the clerk of the council. (2) Be custodian of the county seal. (3) Conduct all elections held within the county. (4) Appoint the deputy county clerk, with the approval of the council, and such position shall be exempt from civil service laws and classifications. (5) Perform such other functions as the council may prescribe. (6) Appoint necessary staff for which appropriations have been made by the council, subject to civil service laws and classifications, and exercise the same power with respect to the personnel of the clerk's office as the department heads in the executive branch, with the exception of the office of the legislative auditor. (d) The council may hire its own council staff attorneys pursuant to Section 46-32 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Furthermore: al Council staff attorney positions shall be exempt from civil service laws and classifications and report to the council chairperson. Council staff attorneys shall serve the council, may advise the council independently of the corporation counsel without limitation, and may represent the council in legal disputes with the executive branch. (3) By a two-thirds vote of its entire membership, the council may authorize by resolution attorney(s) hired by contract to represent the council. These contract attorneys shall serve the council, advise the counsel in legal matters without limitation, and represent the council as special counsel in litigation in any matter. Any such authorization shall specify the maximum compensation, if any, to be paid to the attorneys for said services. al In the event that council staff attorneys are authorized by a resolution and with a two-thirds vote of the council's entire membership to represent the council in litigation, those council staff attorneys shall be deemed to have the status of"special counsel" for thepurpose of that litigation. Lel Compensation, if any, to special counsel under this section shall be paid from the budget of: (1) The council if it: (A), decides to employ special counsel for its own purpose; (B) determines that a conflict of interest with the office of the corporation counsel exists; (C) determines that a conflict of interest with the executive branch exists; or 2 (2) The office of the corporation counsel if the office of the corporation counsel voluntarily withdraws as a result of its stated conflict of interest with the council." SECTION 3. Article VI, chapter 5, section 6-5.5, of the Hawai`i County Charter(2010 Edition), is amended to read as follows: "Section 6-5.5. Special Counsel. F i.-1 e e d (a) The council may, by two-thirds vote of its entire membership and by resolution, authorize the employment of special counsel for the executive branch or the County of Hawaii for any matter presenting a necessity for such employment. Any such authorization shall specify the maximum compensation, if any, to be paid for said services. (b) The council, by two-thirds vote of its entire membership and by resolution, may authorize the employment of special counsel for the legislative branch without limitation, as provided in Section 3-6 of this Charter. Any such authorization shall specify the maximum compensation, if any, to be paid for said services." SECTION 4. Charter material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New charter material is underscored. When revising,compiling, or printing these charter provisions for inclusion in the Charter of the County of Hawai`i,the reviser need not include the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end,the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 6. Upon adoption of this ordinance,this council, by appropriate resolution, shall provide that this amendment be submitted to the electorate of Hawai`i County for approval in the 2012 general election. 3 SECTION 7. The charter amendment proposed in this ordinance shall take effect upon its approval by a majority of voters voting on this legislation in the 2012 General Election, as duly certified. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEM R, COUN F HAWAII , Hawai`i Date of Introduction: Date of ls`Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Date of 3`d reading: Effective Date: RfENa Comm., 482.12 4