HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0494.006 2014-2016Pl �
cD>n4q4
Murashige, Laura
From:
Cheryl King <CKing@hawaii.rr.com>
"'
C:F
C) C--)
Sent:
Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:50 PM
CD
'
To:
Council Testimony
T
Subject:
Testimony in Favor of Bill 101: Relating to the Board of Ethics
0-
fs
��
S C71
Chair Eoff,
Vice Chair Poindexter, and Members of the Finance Committee:
My name is Cheryl King and I am representing myself.
Article XIV of the State Constitution requires the establishment of Ethics Boards for each
political subdivision. It states only that "members of Ethics commissions shall be prohibited
from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns. Ethics
commissioners shall be selected in a manner which assures their independence and
impartiality."
In spite of this, the County Charter has set up its Boards and Commissions to be partisan
unless otherwise stated in the Charter.. Bill 101 has added a clause (Section I, Section 14-5
c requiring that each Council Member nominate 2 people who "shall not belong to the same
political party" and that the Mayor choose one in accordance with Section 13-4 (f) of the .
County Charter on Boards and Commissions. It is because Section 13-4 (f) states that "no
more than a bare majority of the members shall belong to the same political party.
If the Ethics Board is to be non-partisan, it must be stipulated so that rule is not in effect.
Is it necessary to have a politically balanced Ethics Board? Does it make a difference? I'm not
sure and would certainly like to hear council and public discussion on that.
Although I am in support of the basic premises of Bill 101, I would like to see some changes.
Please consider:
-Clarifying the language in Section 13-4 (f) (Boards and Commissions) and 14-5 c of the
charter to specifically state that those who have not chosen a party affiliation can be
nominated and how they are to be counted. Or something like, "the two nominees shall not
belong to the same political party, not to exclude nominees who are not affiliated with a
party."
Some people are worried that those not affiliated with a party could be excluded.
Please Consider:
-A 3 year term for Board of Ethics members. Five years is just too long for some people to
commit to a Board, especially if they work. More people might be willing to volunteer if there
is less of a time commitment.
Comm. No. qi t
Please consider: Ref. Tot G
-Adding language to stagger the initial appointments. Ref. Date NOV 17 '
With 9 council districts and 3 year terms, it will be easy to arrange with District 1 for 1 year,
District 2 for 2 years, and District 3 for 3 years, etc. We would only have a third of the
members rotating each year
Please consider:
-Requiring the Board to meet on both sides of the island in the interest of fairness to the
Commissioners and to members of the public bringing complaints who would like to attend
some of the meetings in person. I do not think we can rely on "house rules" to make this
happen.
Council Members, please support the basics of Bill 101. The Ethics Board should be
increased to 9 members and 2 residents from each district should be nominated by their
council members with one chosen by the Mayor, and confirmed by the Council. I think this
would be a good set of checks and balances.
Cheryl King
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
CKing@hawaii.rr.com