Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-28 Cost of Government Commission Minutes COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION c/o Office of the Corporation Counsel, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 MINUTES Wednesday, January 28, 2011 –10:00 a.m. Department of Liquor Control Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 CALL TO ORDER MS. NICHOLSON: I’d like to call the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Present: Excused: Kenneth Armour Eileen O’Hara Glen Matsuda Marilyn Nicholson Kathy Garson Patricia Provalenko Shanell Sarsuelo Gloria Wong Emarie Carvalho Bill Takaba, ex-officio Sandy Arriola STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: MS. NICHOLSON: Do we have any Statements From the Public? There being no statements from the public, we now have Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MS. NICHOLSON: We now have Approval of Minutes which we just received. I would like to defer the discussion on the minutes until the next meeting so we’ve all had a chance to read them. Somebody like to make a motion to that effect? Do we need to make a motion? MS. GARSON: You know there is a requirement under the Sunshine Law that minutes be available within 30 days. Your next meeting is February 11 and yes we’re fine. Then we’re okay. Cause the minutes are from the fourteenth, so if you meet on that line, okay. You can defer it. MS. NICHOLSON: So if we don’t have a quorum for our next meeting which we may not. MS. GARSON: Things such as that happens. Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer MS. NICHOLSON: So it’s beyond our control. MOTION: MS. WONG: I make a motion to defer until our next meeting. MS. PROVALENKO: I’ll second. MS. NICHOLSON: All in favor say aye. ACTION ON MOTION All: Aye. MS. NICHOLSON: Opposed? None. DISCUSSION, AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH ERIC TANOUYE, AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING HIS RESPONSE DATED DECEMBER 9, 2010 TO QUESTIONS IN THE COST OF GOVERNMENT’S AUGUST 5, 2010 LETTER: MS. NICHOLSON: For item number 4, I don’t believe Mr. Tanouye was able to join us today. Have we scheduled him for an upcoming meeting? MS. GARSON: I guess we’re attempting to see if he’s available for the next meeting. So if you want to defer it, we’ll just keep deferring it until he can come. We’ll just put it on for that meeting where he can come. MS. NICHOLSON: Sounds good. CORRESPONDENCE: MS. NICHOLSON: All right. Correspondence. This is communications and they’re actually all the same thing,2010-150 through 158. Do I hear a motion to accept and file? MOTION: MS. PROVALENKO: So moved. MS. WONG: Second. MS. NICHOLSON: All in favor say aye. ACTION ON MOTION All: Aye. MS. NICHOLSON: Opposed? None. MS. NICHOLSON: Any discussion on any of those correspondences which are basically copies of the letters we sent out. REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES: MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. We’re right on to Agenda 6, Reports from Subcommittees. Do we have a report from the Operations, Budget, and Consolidation subcommittee? 2 MS. WONG: I’ll hold off our report when we get to agenda item about boards and commissions. MS. NICHOLSON: Do we have a report from Revenue Enhancement and Collections subcommittee? MS. PROVALENKO: Not at this time. We’re still waiting for information. MS. NICHOLSON: And I can say that we have no report from Technology Recommendations and Adoptions. MS. GARSON: Before you go on, so the committee met on boards and commissions? Remember how when you have a subcommittee, you present the report, and then there’s no discussion at the meeting, and you discuss the report at the next meeting. So if you pass up on your report, I’m wondering what it is that you’re going to do when we get to the board and commission agenda item. Did you have a meeting outside of MS. WONG: I think it was in November when we were meeting with several different, when we had a roll of meetings with different departments. MS. GARSON: Okay. So you’ve already reported about those discussions. MS. WONG: Yes. And we did not finish on this topic because it seemed to be, I think our meeting had ended and we waited and waited about three or four meetings that this topic has come up that we had not addressed yet. MS. GARSON: Okay. So you don’t have a new report? MS. WONG: No. MS. GARSON: Okay. Got it. Thank you. DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED IN DRAFT REPORT: MS. NICHOLSON: Now we’re on to Discussion Regarding Items Previously Recommended to be Placed in Draft Report. I wonder if we want to jump to Agenda item 9 before we get into this rather involved discussion on the draft report. Would you like to do that? MS. WONG: I can do that. MS. NICHOLSON: Can we ask the audience members to introduce themselves, or not? MS. WONG: Is that allowed? MS. GARSON: Normally you, would any of you mind at all? 3 MS. LAUER: I don’t mind. I’m Nancy Cook Lauer. I’m with West Hawai‘i Today. MS. CASTBERG: I’m Joan Castberg from the Legislative Auditor’s office. DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: MS. NICHOLSON: Thank you. Okay, if we’re in agreement, then we’re going to jump to Agenda item 9 and then we’ll go back to Agenda item 7. So we’re on to Discussion Regarding Consolidation of Boards and Commissions. And we did have a list of those that was provided to us, mailed out to us. MS. WONG: That list was without comment from our committee, but if I may, I did a handwritten summary of what we had discussed in our committee meeting. Not that we’re recommending; I just want to relay what we had discussed in group. On the list that you have, a group that is possibly combining Ag and Arborist. Possibly combining Aging and Disability. Possibly combining Bicycle, Highway and Transportation. Possibly combining Appeals and Fire. Possibly deleting Cost of Government, Family and Veterans. Possibly looking at Energy working with the Green Team. On some of these that I’ve marked and asked Bill, can these be even grouped together or not? And some of them he said, that won’t work, that won’t work, these are possibilities to look at. And as we were ending our meeting, we talked about, if they all continue, just to give or ask the committees, commissions and boards to look at their schedule of meetings. And those that are meeting monthly, could they possibly find it more feasible to meet quarterly instead of monthly. And those meeting quarterly, do they need to meet monthly or semi-annually. Just to look at their schedule to see what works for them to function properly. So there were basically two things that we did: Look at possibilities of consolidating boards and commissions, and secondly, to consider asking them to look at their schedule. Those are the two things that we discussed on this matter. Any questions? MS. NICHOLSON: I have a question. So did you look at the descriptions of each of these committees to see what they’re charge was to see if they might be similar? MS. WONG: I looked on line. As a committee, we did not look at it. As we met with departments, I would ask, who do you oversee on these boards and commissions? And I would ask if might this work or might that work, and they commented or did not comment, just said that we oversee that particular commission or board. So I did, but the committee as a whole did not. MS. PROVALENKO: I have a question. Isn’t Cost of Government a commission by the Charter? MS. WONG: Yes. MS. PROVALENKO: Okay, so how would you combine? MS. WONG: All of these are just, we just went with the concept of asking to delete or not delete or combine or not combine or not. I’m assuming all of them were by Charter. 4 MS. GARSON: No. MS. WONG: So, we just looked at it as if we’re going to advise, we’re just advising, not making any changes or recommendations. And I was hoping that Bill would be able today to further comment on it. But unfortunately he’s not here. MS. NICHOLSON: So the other boards and commissions that are on this list which aren’t up there, are things that you have determined or you feel at this point, need to continue to stay as they are. MS. WONG: Except for asking them to look at their schedule. MS. NICHOLSON: Now, I understand that the Planning Director had indicated, maybe I’m wrong on this, indicated some reservations about the number of community planning committees and subcommittees, and there’s quite a few on here. MS. WONG: I forgot that one because that was such a huge one. Thank you for reminding me. It was suggested that the Planning and Action committees be combined, that there not be two for each area. It was strongly suggested. MS. NICHOLSON: By the Planning Director? MS. WONG: Yes. Bobby Jean. MS. NICHOLSON: So that’s another combination sort of in the case across the boards. So what do you envision as the next step for investigating this further? MS. WONG: I think we just wanted to bring it to this body at this time and ask for feedback or direction if any. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, it seems to me we need to do something if we’re going to pursue this, and I’m not quite sure the way to do it other than maybe to send out letters to each one of these committees and say, using A as an example, saying what will be the implications, and what is your feeling about combining Ag and the Arborist committee, just to find out from them, as well as the questions that you said you needed to pose about how often you meet, do you need to meet that frequently, those kinds of questions. MS. WONG: We could do that, but all the recommendations that are being discussed for like item 7 on the agenda or that we will be making recommendations, we would then go to each department to see they’re thoughts and the recommendations. I guess I’m suggesting that the process that I would be expecting is that seeing this as a committee, not recommendation, but consideration for the members of the commission to say yes or no to, or revise it. MS. NICHOLSON: Am I correct that all these committees, except the Green Team, or I may be way off base here, are citizen committees? Or are they headed by County employees? I know the Green Team is, but I don’t know about the others. 5 MS. GARSON: I believe that they are all volunteer community members. MS. NICHOLSON: Not just those, but all of these. MS. GARSON: I think they are all volunteer community members. Obviously they may have ex-officio members that are department people. MS. NICHOLSON: So, Gloria, you are suggesting that we go to the County departments that are sort of in charge of these committees to get feedback versus going directly to the committees which are citizen by committees. MS. WONG: I’m suggesting going directly to the committee, to the citizens in the committee to make the judgment for their function. They’d have to work with of course the County. MS. NICHOLSON: Any comments from the commission members? Thoughts how to best tackle this? MS. GARSON: Maybe one of the things to do is we can put these proposals on your next agenda and send a notification to the boards and see if they want to have someone come and give a statement. What’s going to happen, if you send them a communication now, I’m not sure about when they meet, you’re not going to get a response for at least probably a month because they’ll have to meet. So if you send them a communication, maybe we can catch them at a time for them to come and discuss it or something. It will take time to get a response from the board, is what I’m saying. And we saw that when we sent them the other communication because they don’t necessarily meet monthly. Some of them will be quarterly. MS. WONG: Madam Chair, if it will be easier, I can summarize and make a recommendation from our committee. I just didn’t want to do that before inviting comment from this group’s commission members. MS. NICHOLSON: And that would include the consolidation of say the South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee and the South Kohala Community Development Steering Committee? MS. WONG: Yes. Three items. MS. NICHOLSON: So, if you do that, we put that on the agenda for the next meeting and we would approve those as recommendations from your subcommittee? MS. WONG: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: And in the meantime, put this on the agenda for the next meeting so that all of these subcommittees would be aware that we’re discussing this? And then could we make sure that all the committees know that this is going to be on the agenda because some of these committees may not have a clue. 6 MS. WONG: Madam Chair, I would certainly like to get Bill Takaba’s input before I actually finish coming out with the summary. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, you have a little bit of time if this is going to go on the agenda for the next meeting. We need to have that by sometime next week? thth, MS. GARSON: Yes, if it’s the 11, yeah. Six days prior to the 11the latest. MS. NICHOLSON: Do you think you can do that? If not it would just move into the next meeting. MS. WONG: I can do that. MS. NICHOLSON: Any other discussion? MS. GARSON: So, can I just be clear? What is it that we’re going to put on the next agenda? Do you want us to break down, put this on the agenda for discussion? Or are you going to come up with a subsequent MS. NICHOLSON: I think Gloria is going to probably talk to Bill and prepare a recommendation document which would go on the agenda. And then we’ll have that also as a discussion item because she’ll get it to you in time to go out with the agenda whether it’s the next one or the second meeting in February. And then we put that as an agenda item, and as long as we can make sure that all of these boards and commissions, including us, know that it’s going to be discussed, it will give them a chance to provide some feedback. MS. WONG: May I ask, since Glen is also on the committee, any comments that I might have missed? MR. MATSUDA: Well, the only comment that I would have is in regards to those commissions whichever they are, or committees that meet quarterly, how are you going to get responses back from them? Or monthly. Maybe they met for the month of February already, so how are you going to get any kind of response? That would be my concern. Because if we’re looking for responses from them we have to discuss MS. WONG: And to answer, MR. MATSUDA: That’s the only concern I would have. Because we’re really waiting for that. MS. WONG: And I think the communication would have to tie in, although it’s addressed to the committee members, it would have to tie in to whichever department oversees their function, supportsit, and should also be responding. MS. NICHOLSON: So then we are asking for a response, either in person or as Kathy said, they might not even get this and be able to respond for two months. What is the best? I guess that’s what we’re trying to get at. What is the best way? 7 MR. MATSUDA: It’s better to get it out there then nothing at all. MS. NICHOLSON: I mean, we may get a response,using A again as an example, we may get a response from the Arborist committee, but not from the Ag committee. And so until we get a response from both of them, it seems to me it’s a little presumptuous to be making a recommendation about those unless we have feedback from someone either a department or the committee itself. So, I guess I’m saying, it’s fine to put iton the agenda but we almost have to provide a way for them to respond in writing if they don’t want to appear in person. These are all volunteer committees and they might not be able to send someone from Kohala down to testify. MR. MATSUDA: So, in that light, we take into consideration those people who do respond and who do meet the criteria that we’re looking at. Because not everybody is going to be able to respond on time, but some of them may be so we can maybe take it a portion at a time per se, because the other committees didn’t meet or commissions didn’t meet yet. But those that did, maybe we can work on that and go from there. Because if everybody submits it all at one time then we’re talking about a big job. Maybe it’s better being that way because as the responses come in then we can tackle them one at a time. MS. NICHOLSON: I would expect the strongest responses would be from ones who object to being combined or eliminated. MR. MATSUDA: Yes, very much so. MS. NICHOLSON: Gloria, give us some guidance here on how we can best proceed to get the kind of feedback you feel we need for inaudible this item. MS. WONG: I think we just go ahead with the summary and ask and see what response and we can adjust as needed. And if we get no response, that will be also an answer for us to find another avenue. MS. GARSON: Okay. So this letter to the chair people of those boards and commissions, you want a letter to go out as soon as you give me the report so we can th tell them what may be discussed? I mean, you want the letter to go out before the 11? MS. NICHOLSON: So if you can get it done, otherwise it would roll to the next commission meeting. MS. GARSON: So, it’s to the chair and to whatever department may be connected to it th saying that this is what will be discussed at the meeting on the 11or possibly at following meetings. MS. NICHOLSON: And don’t you want to invite them to either appear to provide a written response or not? MS. WONG: Yes. I know that this would be extraordinary to ask them to come here to speak because we have so many of them. But I’m good with getting a written response of some sort, but either way will be wonderful if they would respond. 8 MS. NICHOLSON: Would you prefer to request a written response? MS. WONG: Yes. Mr. Takaba arrived at 10:30. MS. NICHOLSON: Do you want to summarize? We’re talking about the boards and commission. MS. WONG: And I put on the board how we had discussed, not recommending but discussed, combining some of the boards and commissions or the X is possibly deleting those boards and commissions, asking the Energy to work with the Green Team; and Planning to combine the Action and Steering committees of the boards and commissions. And this is what we had discussed when we were meeting in a series of meetings with departments. So, we reviewed that for this body and we’re talking about how to get feedback from the boards and commissions, whether they think this possible or don’t want to do that, or if they’re open to recommending rescheduling whether it be monthly, quarterly, semi-annually. And we were just talking about me preparing a summary recommendation from our committee for this commission to go along with a letter out to the board member or president? MS. NICHOLSON: Chair as well as the department that is associated with it, requesting a written response or they can appear if they so choose. MS. WONG: That was when you walked in that we were talking about whether a written or in person response. And I was saying a written is fine. MR. TAKABA: So the different committees or commissions would respond or comment on that proposal, is that what you’re asking? MS. WONG: Yes. And I said a little earlier that before I do the summary, just to make sure because when we last mopped this up, we were ending the meeting and I wanted to make sure that you were okay with what I was saying that it would be doable. Cause some of the things that we talked about were not doable. MR. TAKABA: I’m not sure if any of them are Charter. Are there Charter commissions in here? MS. GARSON: Just as an example, the Cost of Government is a Chartered commission. MR. TAKABA: Some may be easier than others. It’s good to get feedback but some may be easier than others to combine and some may have regulations that don’t allow them to combine. Like Aging and Disabilities. It may make sense today if they’re federal funding is not jeopardized because Aging has to have a Committee on Aging to get Older Americans Act funds. And so I’m not sure if in the law they allow another function to be assumed by the Committee on Aging. It’s actually set up, although it’s in the code, its really set up under rules of the Older Americans Act to be able to receive 9 funding through that Act. That’s just an example of some of the things that we don’t see by just looking at the committees. But I think this is something that people on the committees, or people who oversee the committees would be able to tell us if that’s the direction that we go to. MS. WONG: And that larger question of, is any of this doable? Some are by Charter, this is by Charter. I had responded that we’re advisory. Some of the other things that we may be recommending outside of this topic may or may not be doable, especially things dealing with the union and salary. So we come up with the thought and a recommendation and take it from there. MR. TAKABA: It’s good to get feedback. MS. WONG: So, maybe with that comment it would be better to ask them to appear, either or. MS. GARSON: The other thing is people on the Fire Commission aren’t necessarily going to know what the Board of Appeals does. So, how do you want them to comment on whether or not it makes sense for them consolidate with somebody else? Are we giving them that information? What is it that you’re going to be asking them? MS. WONG: I would think they would communicate with the department that assists them to help them understand to come to an answer. Kathy, is it naïve of me to think that? MS. GARSON: I’m actually just trying to think of how your letter is going to look. And at this point if you say to the chair of the Board of Appeals, what do you think about consolidating with the Fire Commission? I really would assume they might go, I don’t know. There’ll have to some explanation of what the Fire Commission does and their duties. I’m wondering what kind of MS. NICHOLSON: Either that or why they might think that they might be a logical fit so they would have something to react too. MS. GARSON: Maybe. MS. NICHOLSON: Which would be a lot more work on our part. MR. TAKABA: So, from the standpoint of cost, it’s to shrink the commissions so that you don’t have the cost of operating the commission or paying for mileage? MS. NICHOLSON: Yes. And we actually did get some comments from Energy people saying that their board or commission should not meet as often, didn’t we? Or maybe that was the last Cost of Government Commission. MS. PROVALENKO: I remember that. I don’t remember in this one. Yeah, it was in the last one. 10 MS. NICHOLSON: Somebody said, you know, we don’t need to meet as often as we meet, or that kind of idea. MS. PROVALENKO: We have no business to perform. You know, there were several of them that said that. MS. NICHOLSON: I share Kathy’s concern is that I’m not sure how they would respond. If I was on the Fire Commission and got a request like that, I would go, I don’t even know what the Board of Appeals does, and you’re asking me as a volunteer then to get together with a volunteer who heads another commission and the staff from the whatever departments those are assigned to, and try to thrash out a response in 30days or whatever. MS. WONG: Would you prefer then that we not even address the combination of boards and commissions like a, b, c’s, and just address the scheduling of the meetings and the planning? MS. NICHOLSON: Well, in some cases we might suggest, would it make sense for the Bicycle Committee to also combine with the Highway and Transportation Committee? We could ask them if that would be a logical thing for them to consider, and just find out what their response is, but that would be a custom letter for every one of these. I don’t want to seem adversarial but I think our point is we’re looking for cost savings, we’re looking to maximize their time as community citizens and their effectiveness, and there seems to be perhaps some redundancy and we’re looking for ways to do this more efficiently. But it seems to me it’s almost like we need to look at the list and, because I don’t know what all these boards and commissions do, we could either suggest some things to them or just get their feedback about meeting times, meeting dates, is there another committee that you think your duties in some way overlap or mesh with, that you think you could combine? And ask them for suggestions about combination? MR. ARMOUR: I agree with your suggestion. A letter like you just outlined. MS. WONG: Would Kathy be preparing that letter? MS. NICHOLSON: Well, it would be up to us to decide. MS. GARSON: Another thing is you did already send the letter to all of the boards and commissions, and part of the question was about consolidation. I thought there were some responses about meeting times and dates that they already came up with. So, is this letter going to be more specific than that? I would think that you would not want to be asking, you would want to give them some direction and yet there is this problem with then we’ll have to give them all the information about what you’re considering. I almost would think that you basically need to come up with the recommendation and have Mr. Takaba look at what you proposed and you can ask council members and see if they see it as something that’s a viable alternative or a good suggestion. I’m having a difficult time trying to figure out how you’re going to get the feedback from one board and asking them to combine with another board. I think maybe you have to get the feedback from somebody else, and then get their feedback when you’ve already made a recommendation. 11 MS. NICHOLSON: I’m ready to do it for a few of these at least is to ask the Planning director to come and specifically have this discussion with her with all of us saying, what is the difference between an Action Committee and a Steering Committee or a Planning Committee? What is the role? And get from her first some recommendations on combinations. MR. ARMOUR: If I read this right, the Steering Committees are already eliminated aren’t they? It says their terms ends on 12/31 already. MS. WONG: But I think systematically as steering committees are needed, there is steering and action committees. I don’t remember, I may be confused about when Bobby Jean spoke about this, but did she not address that specific topic here or am I thinking about the time we met with her in individually. Did she not speak about that here? MS. NICHOLSON: I don’t recall that. I think it was probably you talking to her about it. I could be wrong but I think you reported back that she had mentioned it. Well, I’m open to suggestions on how we want to move forward with this. MR. TAKABA: It seems like more appropriately it would be the departments that oversee the different committees, if you want feedback on whether the combinations would work. Normally there’s an agency that provides oversight or that these committees are assigned to. Maybe if you want feedback, the appropriate feedback, maybe the departments could make those comments that you’re looking for rather than the members. MS. NICHOLSON: The departments would actually save the money by combining or eliminating some of these committees. And then the department head would choose whether talk to the committee about it? MR. TAKABA: I think if you’re suggesting that like Aging and Disabilities combine, then Office of Aging is responsible for, right now anyway, Office of Aging is responsible for the Committee on Aging and Committee on People with Disabilities. So, they may want to provide feedback on whether it’s feasible to do that combination. MS. NICHOLSON: So we would send a letter to each department saying for all of those committees, advisory or whatever committees you have under your MR. TAKABA: Like Ag, is that R&D? It’s got to be R&D. MS. WONG: HR. MS. GARSON: No, not HR. If anything, it is R&D. MR. TAKABA: And Arborist would be Parks? MS. WONG: That’s what they told me. 12 MR. TAKABA: So Ag would be under? MS. WONG: I have HR. MS. GARSON: It can’t be HR. MR. TAKABA: R&D. Seems like Research and Development. MS. WONG: That makes sense to me, but I don’t know why I have HR in my notes. At this time, I just know that I will do a summary recommendation, how the process flows after that - MS. NICHOLSON: Well, I think you need to decide how the process is going to flow. So, Bill’s suggestion is that we send that summary out to the departments and ask them –maybe we should send this list too so we can actually figure out where all these belong. Is there an easy way to find out what department all these are so that we can make sure we cover them all? MS. GARSON: Oh yeah, we can do that for you. MS. NICHOLSON: And say, these committees are under your jurisdiction and send us the summary and ask for their comments on consolidations or frequency of meetings. And so we’re really asking for feedback from the department heads or departments that they may choose to give it to those subcommittees for comment. MS. WONG: Sounds good. MS. PROVALENKO: I like that idea. I think that would work better. Looks like Planning has their hands full. MS. NICHOLSON: So, is that fine with you, on what we’re doing? MS. GARSON: Yeah. And it should work most of the time. Just as an example, Board of Appeals, I can’t think of the department that it would be necessarily attached to. It hears appeals from the Planning Director and the Public Works Director, so in that case we’ll just send it to both of them. MS. NICHOLSON: And Gloria, you still want to request a written response? Or do we want to encourage them to appear or provide a written response? MS. WONG: Either/or. Bill, do you have a comment on that? MR. TAKABA: Asking them for a written response? MS. WONG: Either written or in person to appear. MS. GARSON: You can give them the option. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. It doesn’t matter. 13 MS. NICHOLSON: And do we want to try and put a deadline on this? MS. WONG: I think getting them to respond might, oh no, we’re doing to department heads? Yeah. Let’s do a deadline. I was thinking about the officers of the commissions and it would take a while to get a response. But if it’s the departments, yeah. MS. NICHOLSON: Like 30 days after the letter goes out? MR. TAKABA: You should also find out like how much money this will save. I’m not sure how often like the Arborist Committee meets. I think the purpose of that one was if they’re going to cut a tree, if Parks and Recreation is going to cut a tree down, then they would approach the Arborist Committee and get feedback from them. And I’m not sure if they meet regularly or only if needed. The Pension Board is not up there but the Pension Board would meet, at best, once every four months, whenever there’s an issue. And eventually it’s going to probably phase out. There are no more pensioners in the County. MS. NICHOLSON: But that’s the kind of feedback we would expect to get from them saying there is a need, they only meet when they need to. So obviously there’s not a lot of cost savings. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. So you might want to target consolidating where it makes sense and where you can save money from. So if they’re not spending anything or spend very little, then I don’t know if it’s worth the effort to go and consolidate. MS. NICHOLSON: Especially since there is some citizen involvement there. MR. TAKABA: And some of them have special skills too, like the Arborist Committee. These are people who know about trees and preservations. And Ag would be a different type of knowledge. And that may come up when you pose the question. MS. NICHOLSON: I think wejust have to see how they respond. So, do we want try to put a deadline on these? Like six weeks? 30 days? What’s your pleasure? MS. WONG: Sometime in February. We have a short time left. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, we don’t when you’re going to get your summaries done so MS. WONG: This week. MS. NICHOLSON: So, when is our first meeting in March? If we get it by the end of February, then we could be looking at them in ththrd MS. WONG: The 11in March is a scheduled meeting. The 11and 23in March. MS. NICHOLSON: So if we ask for responses by the end of February? 14 MS. WONG: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: Any other discussion? MR. TAKABA: Yeah. Just a note –on the Transportation Commission. That commission is the one that approves the taxi licenses. So, I’m not sure if that’s tied in to Bicycle and Highway. It doesn’t hurt to send out the questionnaire. But just looking at it, I don’t know if there’s a connection between issuing Certificates of Convenience for taxi drivers and investigating taxi complaints as opposed to the Bicycle and Highway functions. This might be a totally different purpose. MS. WONG: Maybe our committee can meet together some time next week and next to a computer and go on the website to get the information and solidify the recommendations and clarify. So I’ll e-mail both of you to try and schedule something. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay, any other discussion on Agenda topic number 9, Discussion regarding consolidation of boards and commissions? MS. GARSON: Just so that I’m clear for our staff. This letter is going to go out as soon as we get your report. And is it for your signature or from the whole commission? This The Cost of Government is considering consolidation the is what I just drafted: blank and the blank and are reducing the number of meetings that are held. This will be discussed at its February meeting and thereafter. If you have any comments or concerns about this, please submit them to us prior to February 28 or feelfree to come to one of our meetings to discuss this. Is it something like that? MS. NICHOLSON: At this point we’re not really going to discuss until we get some feedback in March. Right? We’re not really discussing it in February except that you were going to submit your summary to us at the first meeting in February. MS. WONG: I thought the summary was going out with the letter. MS. GARSON: Yeah. MS. NICHOLSON: So, I guess do we feel like we need to approve this summary before it goes out? MS. PROVALENKO: It would be nice to see it. MR. MATSUDA: So we know what it is. MS. WONG: Is it acceptable to send it to all the members before it gets sent out? MS. GARSON: No. MS. WONG: Sunshine? MS. GARSON: Yes. 15 MS. NICHOLSON: So we can approve it at our February 11 meeting? And then the letter can go out immediately thereafter, in which case you’ll be signing it because I’ll be out of town. MS. GARSON: Okay. So we’ll wait on the letter until after the next meeting. Got it. MS. NICHOLSON: Any other discussion on that agenda item? DISCUSSON REGARDING ITEMS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED IN DRAFT REPORT: MS. NICHOLSON: Now we will go back to Agenda item number 7, which is Discussion ofItems Recommended in the Draft Report. And we really wanted toboth review these items and the way they’re categorized, and start thinking about how we want to put this thing together, which is quite different from the last two Cost of Government Commission reports. But I just want to make sure that whatever we present is going to be easily readable, usable, actionable to those it’s intended for. So, format wise, do we like this sort of format? There are some Department-specific Suggestions, but for the most part, D are the department specific suggestions, but the other things are sort of across the board. So it’s not really aimed at departments for the most part. Do we like this format? Kind of a format that you think it’s usable, approachable, and actionable? MR. MATSUDA: Bill, is this format, how different is it from prior commissions, the Cost of Government Commission, as far as the recommendations? MR. TAKABA: We have the report. MS. GARSON: Maybe I can answer. I think that the past ones we broke down by department as opposed to by subject matter of the recommendations. And there were some miscellaneous items. MR. MATSUDA: Because it’s by departments, obviously it’s department specific, so you just give it to the departments, but having it this way is very general and whatever applies to the departments, I guess you’ll pick it up from here. But is it easier or better for the Cost of Government Commission to make a recommendation to each department? Is that what I’m hearing? MS. NICHOLSON: I think our audience is really the County Council members. This is going to be submitted to them, and they’re going to need to look at this. MS. GARSON: It goes to the mayor and the council. MR. MATSUDA: Good. I think this is good. This format is good. MS. NICHOLSON: And then, we’ve got right now, references to where this came from, the meeting minutes. Is that important? 16 MS. GARSON: That was only for your reference in case there was some confusion as to where this came from. We just wanted to make sure that we were noting where it came from. So those will be deleted once you finalize your recommendations. MS. NICHOLSON: But in a way I think it’s good to have the source of some of this stuff noted. So they’re not just out there, but totally they’re tied to something. MS. PROVALENKO: My only thought is if they’re tied to something and they want to look at it, are you going to attach that to it? MS. NICHOLSON: I think that’s part of our discussion. What kind of an appendix do we want to have so that there is a reference to this so that someone could go back and say, did this come from an employee? Did this come from a department head? Does it matter to the County Council or the mayor if the source of these kinds of recommendations? MS. GARSON: And just so you know that there’re a lot of them that have the January 14 meeting, your last meeting because you had done the summary consolidation. So the reference is only going to go back to your summary not where it actually came from. MS. NICHOLSON: Which is almost all from Mr. Yagong’s report. So, format wise, we think we like this approach, grouping by topic rather than by department? At this point, I don’t know how we will go back and put into department format. Do we feel like we need to add anymore explanation? For instance, I’m looking at Item E-1, Consolidate Enforcement. I wouldn’t find that terrible meaningful if I didn’t know anything about where that came from. So it seems to me for some of these we need to go back and give a little background or a little explanation of what these mean. Otherwise it’s meaningless. Some of them are clear. Eliminate vacant funded positions. Fine. But that one, Consolidate Enforcement, if I were a County Council member, I’d go, huh, what are you talking about? What is he referring to? MR. TAKABA: In the previous report, they did findings and then the recommendations. It seemed like it might provide the background that you need to make that recommendation. MS. NICHOLSON: Could you be more specific and give an example from what we’re looking at. MR. TAKABA: If you have your binder, I’m just looking at the previous report that was done in 2003. They went by each department and they explained what the department does. And then they came up with findings related to what they could do to improve or to reduce cost for that department. And then they made recommendations based on those findings. So if we’re looking at Consolidated Enforcement, if you had a finding that showed that different inspectors go out at different times and only one person should go out and do enforcement for several different departments. It would be clearer I think if you do it that way. 17 MS. NICHOLSON: But based on the format that we have now, which is totally different because it’s not department MR. TAKABA: Yeah. I mean we can still do the finding for like say Consolidated Enforcement. We come up with a finding that is inefficient because it cost too much money. You have three different inspectors going out on different days to inspect that same property. That would be your finding. And the recommendation would be to consolidate enforcement activities for these different inspectors. I guess the question would be the, why. Why are we making this recommendation? Why did we come up with that recommendation? MS. GARSON: And I would just recommend that you call it a rationale or explanation rather than a finding. MS. NICHOLSON: Because we’re not going to have findings for all of these, but some of them. It is a further explanation. MR. TAKABA: It could be just a narrative to explain why you’re doing this and what you’re trying to accomplish. It could be just a narrative. It doesn’t have to be a formal, like Kathy was saying, you don’t have to say findings and recommendation. You could just briefly explain the background as to why you’re coming up with this recommendation. MS. WONG: I’d like to suggest for consideration when we come up with the final document that we, as a commission, if I get a document that lists these are the 400things that I’d like you to consider. It would be kind of overwhelming for me to consider all of those. But if the commission can state,these are our priorities, that we would recommend a few. And then add all the ones that we have been voting on to say these are the ones that the commission supports that has been recommended by a body of responses that we have received. So then we have priority and then we also support this. MS. NICHOLSON: So can you give an example of something that would be a priority. MS. WONG: For me the priority would be someone to address on education and health, and grant writing. These are the priorities that we would recommend to the council and to the mayor, and to support the overall function of the economic cost of government. We support these recommendations, work hour benefits pay, travel vehicle use, department specific suggestions and we have reviewed and voted upon to support these recommendations. MS. NICHOLSON: I’m not getting the tie between say that as a priority and then these items under it. MS. WONG: It doesn’t have to be under, it’s an also. And the priorities would be a few things that we really want to address, and we’ll support these other things that other people have recommended. 18 MS. NICHOLSON: Cause to me the priority would be something along the lines of reduce employee benefits, and then the specific things that we have that we’re putting forth to accomplish this goal would be these things. MS. WONG: And how many pages of these things are we going to submit? MS. NICHOLSON: I have no idea. MS. WONG: And that’s why my comment is it’s just too many. MS. NICHOLSON: I agree, it’s a lot. But there are really ways to accomplish that one goal, so we would be coming up with some specific goals.Like adding a position for a grant writer to secure more funds might be a goal. And then perhaps we have something over here that would be potential ways to achieve that goal. MS. WONG: We could, but more effort. MS. NICHOLSON: It’s going to be a lot of effort. We have work ahead of us. How about other feelings about presentation so that we’re not just handing a laundry list essentially,which is kind of cumbersome. MS. WONG: I was looking through last meeting’s minutes to Mr. Hoffmann’s response, although realizing that this goes to the council, the Cost of Government Commission, he didn’t really have much information about the previous, he wasn’t really aware about the previous commissions. And when posed on questions, my specific questions, he commented that he never really thought about it. So that sort of tells me that other departments were not aware.If we now give them a whole lot of paper, I don’t know how they’re going to respond to that. That was why I was sort of excited at the last meeting to think that we might be able to, when we’re finished with whatever our final is, to ask them to come here to actually tell them what our final recommendations were, so they can’t say next year, not aware. MS. NICHOLSON: That’s department heads you’re talking about? MS. WONG: Yes. And possibly council since now I know that’s where it actually is addressed. MS. NICHOLSON: Isn’t it correct that our audience really is the CountyCouncil and the mayor? MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. WONG: Although that’s a real audience, the department heads and the employees would be the ones implementing it. MS. NICHOLSON: Any other feelings about presentation? I don’t know that it’s going to get a whole lot, it’s obviously going to expand from what we have now. But I don’t know that it’s going to like double the number pages from what we have now until we start explaining or justifying some of our recommendations. I really want to think about 19 it if you were in the position of receiving this, how it’s most useable and approachable for you if you were, say, on the council or you were the mayor,so you would take it seriously. And I do like your suggestion, Gloria, of having some key topics or key summaries that we have and then try to organize things underneath them. MS. WONG: I’d also like to bring it back to the original topic that Bill said at the first meeting of the essential functions of the County government, to pull that in. I think we established that early on or at least spoke to it. MS. NICHOLSON: But I’m not sure that we actually did establish it, and I don’t know that that is reflected in what we have in front of us at the moment. We haven’t really articulated, I don’t think, those key functions of government. MS. WONG: I think the report that our committee submitted listed the eight in the areas that were not addressed and that’s why I keep reminding about health care and education, the ones that we’re not addressing. MS. NICHOLSON: Where on your report? Where is that? MS. WONG: I’m thinking that I might have just spoken it and not written it out. But I remember e-mailing. So I don’t remember who I e-mailed it to, and I apologize. I can bring that summary that I have in my notes at home to validate the functions. MS. NICHOLSON: If that’s our tack, I think we all need to see it and agree that we feel those are the key functions of government. Cause that would be a good introduction. MS. PROVALENKO: It seems like a good start for us. MS. NICHOLSON: So can you get those and back them up in the next agenda so we can have that as a report that we can then discuss and agree on it. MS. WONG: Okay. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. So how would you like to address providing a little bit more background or justification or explanation for some of these? We don’t need to do all of them. We can start through the list and do some of them today. We can do some of them at each meeting. And I think quite a few of them we don’t need to actually add any explanation to. I’m sure no one really wants to volunteer to take it on as a task. MS. GARSON: Would you want to turn your topics into broad recommendations and then choose some things under it? Actually Reimbursement/per diem –so that, is the recommendation like to reduce reimbursements and per diem payments? And underneath that have –Eliminate meal reimbursement, replace set per diem. It’s your topic heading that’s sort of a broad recommendation and then some things to accomplish that as a recommendation. MR. ARMOUR: I think that’s a good idea. 20 MS. GARSON: Or is it just going to be organized that way, and they’re going to be meeting recommendations under that topic heading? MS. NICHOLSON: I think it’s really some methods that we discussed or addressed or that came up to address that particular issue. So rather than say, A. Work Hours/Benefits Pay, what I’m hearing from you is that it would be something like –that we are recommending that the County look at reducing or reformatting or providing more flexibility for employee work hours? MS. GARSON: Yeah. Something like that. MS. NICHOLSON: Something like that and then –benefits would probably be a different one. What do you think? This is when we’re tackling it,right now. Would you like to jump into it right now and get a start and then we will probably not get through the whole thing today, but we will continue it on? So at least we’ll feel like we have something. MS. PROVALENKO: I like the idea. MS. NICHOLSON: But I do want to still keep in mind the, and maybe they’ll rise to the top as we go through the next couple of months, are these sort or overarching goals or themes for the County that Gloria has mentioned, because I think that’s going to be sort of the inspiration part. And then what we were talking about specifically today will fall under some of that. MS. WONG: Is anyone needing to leave at any time soon? Everybody’s good on time? MS. PROVALENKO: I’m good till about 12:30. MS. NICHOLSON: Let’s start. 7A. So we want to summarize work hours and group all of the work hour items in A. Actually this is the longest one, so we can get the longest one over first. We are recommending that the County work with the unions to provide employees with reduced and/or more flexible work hours. I’m separating benefits out. I don’t know that we’re really coming in favor of reduced work hours here. It’s more like if an employee wants to not work 40-hours a week, we’re going to allow that to happen. So, we’re not really saying we’re in support of furloughs or a reduced work week are we? MR. MATSUDA: Do we have to say anything about work with the union? Because all of these items you’re going to be working with anyway, and that’s why I’m thinking if it involves the union, just by listing it down as we have it here, it seems to be, in my mind, that it’s pretty much okay, understood that if this is the recommendation, well maybe this will fly, maybe this won’t fly. But as far as the recommendation, okay, this is what we’re recommending. Now the union has an affect on it, well, you’re going to work with the unions with maybe one, three, five, seven, six, or whatever number it is. Whatever recommendation you have. So, then these are the ones that you have to talk to the union about. So, I don’t see why you have to say, work with the union on every single one. 21 MS. NICHOLSON: I think you’re right. It self-evident. So, how would you recommend then that we sort of frame that overall introductory sentence?Recommend that they consider the following as MR. ARMOUR: Recommend a complete review of the pay package based on hourly work, and here are some suggestions. And then list the ones. A little bit more elaborate than that statement though. MS. NICHOLSON: It’s work hours and pay. It’s work hours more than pay actually because we’re really not saying anywhere that people should be get pay cuts. So, it’s really MR. ARMOUR: No, when I said pay, I meant the whole package –benefits, everything together. Cause you’re recommending change in work hours, doing a different way of overtime, just assuming that we’re keeping all of these for now. So you’re talking about almost everything in here about a persons pay and their work hours, benefits, allowing them to take time off, so my opening statement was A review of the complete compensation package for the employees. If you want to take pay out of that, that’s all right. But you’re addressing almost everything that has to do with that. MS. PROVALENKO: They’re also addressing a certain dollar amount too because if you recommend the overtime based on 40 hours versus eight hours per day. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay, use that as a sort of a summary statement? Again, we’re going to be able to revisit this over and over again. MS. PROVALENKO: Maybe we should start out with something like this now, and then as we go on, because then it becomes clearer and clearer, and we can readdress it, the initial statement. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay, so under that then at this point, the rest of these things will follow. And I’ll just read them by numbers and we’ll say we want to add some other language to that or that’s fine as is. Item 1. Anything else you want to add to item 1? Item 2. Item 3. This one we want to add something to this? I think it needs some explanation. What are we really trying to say? Use flex time to reduce overtime cost. MR. ARMOUR: I think you’re trying to say, Use flex time meaning time off in lieu of overtime pay is what the statement was saying. MS. NICHOLSON: Is this the same as letting them work like 12 hours one day, and four hours the next? MR. ARMOUR: I’m not sure what the original intention of the statement was but some companies allow flex time like if you had to work on the weekends for some reason, then you’re allowed a day or two off in the next month in lieu of getting overtime pay. But I think this can only be for salary employees. 22 MS. NICHOLSON: So how does this relate to #1, Allow employees to work 10 hours/4 days a week, which is flex time? Do we want to take this out? Do we want to leave it in and explain it, cause I think right now MR. ARMOUR: Probably leave it in but put a note that it needs to be exploratory. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, I think now is the time we want to explore it further. Cause if we keep deferring it we’re going to have to keep coming back. MR. ARMOUR: I’m saying I don’t know what the original intent was and who put it in. MS. NICHOLSON: It came from the Yagong report in some way. MS. PROVALENKO: How does flex time reduce overtime cost though? MS. NICHOLSON: Say if you’re in a 40-hour week and you may work more than eight hours in a day, and then you could take some time off. That’s one way flex time works. You could work only six hours the next day. But it relates back to that 40-hour work week versus an 8-hour day work week. So employees would not have to be at work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or whatever, but they could flex,depending on their work schedule. MS. PROVALENKO: So maybe item 11 in the same A, could work with this flex time to reduce overtime costs. Cause that’s the 40-hour work week, versus eight hours per day. Those two to me, seem to go hand-in-hand. MS. NICHOLSON: I would agree that they would go hand-in-hand. So can we combine them into one sentence or one item? And it seems like item 11 is sort of the main one. MS. GARSON: Using the flex time more as part of an explanation or rationale to the 40-hour. Your 3 is almost like a subsection of the overtime. MS. PROVALENKO: So that’s what I was thinking. MS. NICHOLSON: So really it’s an explanation. It’s by setting the work week at 40hours a week rather than 8 hours a day, would it allow an employee to flex their work schedules and reduce overtime. MR. MATSUDA: Just allow flex time. MS. NICHOLSON: We’re exploring using it as sort of an explanation on number 11, if that works for everyone. So we’re going to combine 3 and 11 and use part of 3 as a justification. MR. MATSUDA: Rationale. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. Item 4. Is it okay as is? 23 Item 5. Okay. . Item 6This came straight from the employee, so if we include this just as it is, we are saying that this is what we’re saying. So, do we want to say this? I’d say we might want to drop off F. MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah. I agree. It kind of takes it out of sinc with everything else. That’s why I had to go back to the very first sentence to see exactly where that pertained. MS. NICHOLSON: You want to take out F on Item 6 Section A? MR. MATSUDA: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: Item 7. We fine with that? MS. PROVALENKO: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: Item 8. I would want to just make sure that this information is accurate as it is now stated. Does accrual of vacation and sick leave, is that 14 hours per month per employee? MR. MATSUDA: Yes. MR. TAKABA: 21 days a year. MR. MATSUDA: Comes out to 14 hours. MS. NICHOLSON: So this is accurate. We fine with 8? MS. PROVALENKO: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: Item 9. Fine with 9. Item 10. By the time this goes to the County Council, the budget will already be set for the following year. So I guess my concern with 10 is, is there still going to be time? I like the thought of allowing employees to take time off if they want to. I mean to work less. MS. GARSON: Doesn’t this go with your six? MS. NICHOLSON: Is it the same thing as six? MS. PROVALENKO: I have a question, Bill. If I’m reading in the paper correctly, the mayor can change the amount of furlough days? MR. TAKABA: He cannot go beyond two. MS. PROVALENKO: But you can take it back. MR. TAKABA: Yeah, he can take it back. 24 MS. PROVALENKO: I think Kauai just settled in there. I guess the reason I’m asking is because we’re saying in place of the current furlough system, but that can change. MS. NICHOLSON: Yeah, that’s why I’m wondering about the timing and stuff. We won’t know the current furlough system. Who knows what it will be by the time this is done. So, yes, I think Kathy’s right. It really is a voluntary furlough program. So I think we can do away with 10. Okay. We’ve already modified #11. So we’re on number 12. Is that fine as is? MR. ARMOUR: The 12 you could combine it with 8, changing the hours and putting them together. MS. NICHOLSON: I think they are different, totally different suggestions. And if these are going to be offered as suggestions so one is really keeping the current system and reducing or this is another option. So, I would say we should probably keep them both. But they’re two different methods of attacking the same issue. So, maybe they are. Maybe it’s an and/or kind of expression. MR. ARMOUR: Okay. I’m fine with that. MS. NICHOLSON: So for now we leave them as two separate items. Can we put them together though so they’re sequential? Item 13. Four day work week. And how does it impact with number 1, which we’re saying 10 hours a day, four days a week? I would just take it off. I mean if there needs to be furloughs, then there needs to be furloughs. But do we really want to say that we, as a commission, think that all County employees should only four 4 days a week? I’m not ready to say that. Strike it? And then let’s take a quick little break. BREAK 11:35 –11:40 MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. We are back. Now we’re looking at Reimbursements/Per Diem, so again we want to rephrase this. Suggestions on making this into a sentence? MR. TAKABA: Which one is that? MS. NICHOLSON: We’re looking at B. MR. TAKABA: One? MS. NICHOLSON: Yes. MR. TAKABA: I think the wording is kind of strange. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, first we’re just looking at the heading –Reimbursement/Per Diem. So we are going to express this in a sentence. Ken you did so well with the last one. MR. ARMOUR: Suggest a review of the per diem policy. 25 MS. NICHOLSON: Reimbursements and per diem policy. Item 1. Bill, you thought this was expressed awkwardly. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. I think it should be just eliminate on island meal reimbursements. I think that’s what it’s getting at. MS. NICHOLSON: On island meal reimbursements? Okay, does that sound good for everyone? MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah. MS. NICHOLSON: Number 2. So this would be off island then? Do people get per diem on island at all? Or this would only then be done by MR. TAKABA: Yeah, you can. MS. NICHOLSON: They do get a per diem? MR. TAKABA: If they sleep overnight, not just half a day but they have to stay overnight, they can get a per diem. MS. NICHOLSON: So is two okay as it is? MR. MATSUDA: The per diem, isn’t it a set amount by bargaining unit? MR. TAKABA: Collective bargaining. MR. MATSUDA: So you cannot replace it with actual expenses if it’s a set per diem. I mean, I know you can provide that. MS. NICHOLSON: That’s what we’re requesting is that set the per diem be eliminated, but there still will be a cap. So we’re not getting into, talking about what the cap should be. So we fine on B2? We’re on to C. It’s the same sort of phrasing Ken that you used for the last one that County examine their policies on travel and vehicle use. Would that work? Anybody want to add to 1? Anything we want to add to 2? Anything we want to add to 3? MS. PROVALENKO: I’m a little confused on 2. Eliminate County take-home vehicles. Replace with vehicle pool that would allow employees to check out a vehicle if needed. So what this is saying is you don’t take the vehicles home. So you come in,in the morning and you tag a car. Who is allowed actually to take home vehicles? MR. TAKABA: The department decides, but they have to get the approval by Finance Department. MS. PROVALENKO: So it’s not a common thing? 26 MR. TAKABA: They reduced it by about 50% over the last one year. And the ones they allow are more those that respond to emergencies so they don’t have to come in to the office topick up the key or to the motor pool, pick up their car and then respond. They can go on their way to work. MS. PROVALENKO: That’s why I think this should be explained a little bit more. If we eliminate County take home vehicles, and like I was under the impression it was essential services that were allowed to take them home. MR. ARMOUR: Is there much abuse on private use of the cars? MR. TAKABA: I’m not sure about the abuse, but there are some vehicles that really don’t need to be taken home. Some of it was because of vandalism. Like you would park it at the County building and at night somebody would vandalize the vehicle. So in areas that the cars are parked and are high risk, usually the employees are allowed to take it home. But we’ve stopped that. Even that policy has changed. So, in terms of who should take the vehicles home, it’s really restricted now. MS. NICHOLSON: So is this still even an issue? We did get quite a few comments on this, but maybe the policy was tightened up recently. MS. PROVALENKO: And I think there was a perception too that maybe that had been there for a while. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, maybe there’s no harm in keeping it in. MS. PROVALENKO: The way it reads though, eliminate County vehicle. MS. NICHOLSON: How about restrict the use of County take home vehicles. MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah. I think that would be better because in those essential services, those people need to have those vehicles. MS. NICHOLSON: So then, restrict the use of County take home vehicles to essential services? To first responders? MR. MATSUDA: You don’t need to say first responders or anything. MS. PROVALENKO: I think just restrict the use. I think restricting is better. MR. TAKABA: If you make it too specific, you’re going to rule out even police from taking home the vehicles. MS. NICHOLSON: I think we should put number 1 and 3 side-by-side since they are the same. MR. ARMOUR: I think we have some more telecommunications. MS. NICHOLSON: In another section? 27 MR. ARMOUR: I thought I saw some somewhere else. So if we do, I suggest that maybe we put those all together, unless we did that at the last meeting. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay, then when we get those then let’s move them up too. Well, this is travel. So I think you’re right Ken, we did have some technology things that were maybe a little separate from travel. When we come across them, we can talk about it. I think these Department-Specific Suggestions should not be sort of buried in the midst of all the rest of these. It should probably come at the end or something. It kind of breaks the flow by having department-specific suggestions, so we can go ahead and talk about them now, but I think for now we might want to move them to either before or after what is now F. MR. ARMOUR: Maybe we should group the departments’suggestions together if they’re not. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, they are now. Okay, so we go from the sort of general County-wide things to departments. I think we should move Staffing/Consolidations up so E should be the next topic. E should become D. So, let’s jump to E and then we’ll go back to those. So we’re looking at Staffing/Consolidations. Consolidating Enforcement. This one, we may need to go back tothe minutes of that meeting. It was very specific in terms of what enforcement functions should be consolidated and as Bill said, the discussion was we have various inspections, inspectors going out. MR. ARMOUR: This is a suggestion from Scott Leonard. It’s on the first page –I recommend that the enforcement responsibilities of Planning Department, Building Department, Real Property Tax, Environmental Management and the Department of Health (as contracted effort from the state to the County since this is a state function) be consolidated into an Enforcement Division under the Police Department. And then it goes on about the benefits. And it’s another half a page. MS. NICHOLSON: How about if we keep that except maybe strike,under the Police Department,cause I don’t know that we want to try to recommend where it belongs. MR. ARMOUR: I agree. MS. NICHOLSON: Number 2. Gloria, do you want to say something here about this because we’ve identified that this is a key function of the County or do you just want to leave it like this? Or once we get our priority statement, maybe we’ll take this out and put this in there? Or should we just leave it as is for now and then we’ll look at it again later when we get those other statements. MS. WONG: Okay, what you said. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. Number 3. MS. WONG: Another excellent thought. 28 MS. NICHOLSON: I think we should leave that in. Number 4. MR. ARMOUR: I don’t like number 4. If the manager is doing his job, he should follow the procedures, and reprimand employees appropriately and discipline them, and then eliminate them, fire them. Here it’s basically saying work with the unions so I can fire people easier. MS. NICHOLSON: You want to strike it or is there a germ of something we want to preserve here and express in a different way? MR. ARMOUR: I would prefereliminating, but what’s everybody else’s opinion? MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. Does everybody agree we can eliminate it? MR. MATSUDA: Technically I don’t agree with it. I think unless that individual is doing something grossly negligent or whether it be stealing or something like that from the County, it is a long, drawn out process to get anybody discharged from their employment. And as a supervisor, I’ve gone through that process. It took me quite some time even going through the point of reprimanding that individual, and nothing came about, believe it or not. The person just decided to retire. MR. ARMOUR: I know what you’re saying but maybe it would be better to word it, Work with unions to come up with –I don’t know the correct word. MS. NICHOLSON: Well I think we should take out,work with the unions, and if we’re going to save something, Glen, is it make it easier to release non-productive workers? MR. MATSUDA: Well, see then, the thing is if it makes it easier per se, and I don’t know what easier is, but it makes the person or puts the person as they, saying oh well, hey if I don’t straighten up they’re going to be able to can me. Right now, everybody thinks they’re untouchable. So that’s the consensus that I see. And that’s the only reason why I’m disagreeing with what he’s saying but just eliminating that. MR. ARMOUR: I have a problem with the nonproductive worker. I think if you’re going to make it easier to give rid of nonproductive workers you should change your whole list of policies and make it easier to get rid of anybody whether they steal. Cause nonproductive is very vague. To say you’re nonproductive, and you’re not nonproductive, that’s why I’m just saying, if you’re going to do it for one, just make it a general, just a disciplinary policy review of it or something. MR. MATSUDA: Well I agree with the nonproductive. There are certain steps that you have to actually do. MR. ARMOUR: And I agree. I agree it’s very hard to get rid of employees so I don’t have a problem saying, change the disciplinary procedures but don’t say, make it easier because this employee is nonproductive, because then everybody that they want to get rid of will become a nonproductive employee. MR. MATSUDA: I understand what you’re saying. 29 MS. NICHOLSON: So, if we had something like, review and streamline procedures for policing, what kind of employees? What’s better than nonproductive which still includes nonproductive? MR. ARMOUR: I don’t know the correct term but I know what you mean. MS. NICHOLSON: Employees who are not performing their jobs adequately? MR. MATSUDA: That’s nonproductive. MS. NICHOLSON: Is it about the procedures or is it about the employee? MR. MATSUDA: It’s about employees and the procedures together. I just didn’t want this completely, just left out. But coming from the commission, I will agree with whatever we decide. MS. NICHOLSON: But maybe we do want to sort of review and streamline. But how are we describing –streamline the procedures for disciplining and releasing employees. We’re not saying that’s nonproductive. MS. PROVALENKO: Cause that way it could be for anything. MS. NICHOLSON: It could be for anything. That work? Number 5, Cross train employees to improve efficiencies. Do we have to say something about that? It seems to me like it needs something a little bit more. Cross train employees MS. PROVALENKO: You know what, couldn’t 5 & 6 be combined somehow? Cause you cross train employees to improve efficiencies so that you actually can pool that clerical staff where needed. MS. NICHOLSON: I think the cross training employee though wasn’t necessarily clerical staff, so the clerical staff is sort of different. They overlap, but I think the cross training employees came up having to do with the Planning Department. MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah. I think inspections and stuff. MS. NICHOLSON: So, it’s cross training employees so that they are capable of performing multiple functions or maybe it’s allowed to perform multiple functions? MS. PROVALENKO: Multi tasking. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. For now, let’s make it cross train employees to perform multiple functions, and then we look at it again. Pool Clerical staff where possible. Anything there? Number 7. Number 8. Number 9. Is this already possible, Bill? Can hiring freezes be implemented and then lifted? 30 MR. TAKABA: Yes. It’s internal. But it’s up to the mayor whether he wants to initiate it. MS. NICHOLSON: This is already in place or already possible? MR. TAKABA: We’re a lot stricter in hiring or filling vacant positions. But there is no real freeze going on because some positions just have to be filled. Like the payroll clerk, if she leaves, we have to fill that position or not get the payroll out. So, there’s certain positions that, it’s difficult to do an across the board freeze because there are positions that are critical to County operations. So, we really don’t have a freeze, but we’re very strict about allowing departments to fill positions. MS. NICHOLSON: This is a comment that came from Mr. Hoffmann at our last meeting. And I kind of got that he was saying that the County can do this for six months and then at the end of six months if we decide that the economic picture is better, lift it. But that was his point. But maybe I’m misinterpreting. MR. TAKABA: No. That can be done unless the council is going to do like an ordinance to make that determination that they’re not going to fill any of the positions. MS. NICHOLSON: So do you think this has meaning or not? MR. TAKABA: The way it’s written, it’s okay. Not that I agree with it, but it’s okay. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, but do we agree with it? Cause if we don’t agree with it, we’re putting it forward as our recommendation. We’re fine keeping it in? MS. PROVALENKO: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay, let’s move to 11. MR. ARMOUR: Did we discuss 10? MS. NICHOLSON: Excuse me 10. MR. ARMOUR: What is a mandated job? MS. NICHOLSON: I have no idea what a mandated job is. MR. ARMOUR: Bill, do you know what he means by this? MR. TAKABA: No. Mandated jobs. Maybe what it means is there are certain functions that the County is required to do. And to carry out these functions you have positions to carry them out. That’s the only thing I can think of. MS. NICHOLSON: So would it be like the Aging example you gave earlier. There has to be a position? Would it be like the Office on Aging example you gave earlier where there has to be a position? 31 MR. TAKABA: No, no, no. The earlier discussion was on the committees. MR. ARMOUR: So would this be like park maintenance versus maintenance people? MR. TAKABA: No, no. I guess maybe I’m thinking about like Wastewater. If we require by Federal law to do certain wastewater programs, then we have to keep those positions or else we won’t be able to do it –to carry out that mandate. Solid Waste is the same thing. If you have a transfer station and we’re requiredto man the transfer station, then the people who are there manning the station would be a like a mandated position. But I’m not sure ifthat’s exactly what Mr. Hoffmann meant. I’m just guessing at what he’s talking about. MS. NICHOLSON: I think we should take this one out. I don’t know what a mandated job rather than position would be either. Even if I knew what it meant, it MR. TAKABA: Kathy. MS. GARSON: Well, I’m just looking back at the minutes because I think that the commission paraphrased some of the things that he said. Maybe mandated came from the commission rather than Mr. Hoffmann. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, if you can find it. Let’s move on otherwise I think we should delete it unless we can get some clarification at what we were trying to say. Number 11. MR. TAKABA: I don’t think you’re going to do it by a resolution. It might be state law, right, Kathy? MS. GARSON: I don’t think it’s doable. It’s a statute. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, Mr. Hoffmann was saying that the County should recommend to the state this be done. MS. GARSON: Put forward a resolution to the State Legislature. MS. NICHOLSON: So, if we want to keep this in, I think we should clarify it a little bit. Do we want to keep it in? I think we actually should. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with it, but I think we should. So the recommendation would be for the County to propose a resolution to the State allowing each County to negotiate collective bargaining contracts on behalf of the County. How does that sound? MR. MATSUDA: Okay. MS. NICHOLSON: Number 12. What does this mean? What are we trying to say here? 32 MR. TAKABA: I think what he meant was like you have maintenance workers cleaning parks. We also have maintenance workers cleaning the County building. And these workers, one group falls under Parks. Another group falls under Public Works. We’re talking about combining the maintenance crew and allowing them, or letting them go to Parks and all County facilities rather than just the parks or just the County building. MS. NICHOLSON: So, if we like that as a suggestion, how do we want to phrase it? Consolidate like functions that are currently spread among various departments? I actually like the idea of giving an example. MR. TAKABA: You can say consolidate the employees with similar positions or something like that. MS. NICHOLSON: We would still need a little bit more. Why? How does that make it more efficient or save cost? MR. TAKABA: Because we don’t have to have as many as this. MS. PROVALENKO: Wouldn’t you create a whole new department though? MR. TAKABA: No. You take an existing department like Public Works. And you have a Building Division, and so they could call it, instead of Building Maintenance, it would be like Facility Maintenance. MS. NICHOLSON: So, suggestions on wording? Consolidate functions such as Facility Maintenance? MR. TAKABA: No. Facility Maintenance was just an example. MS. NICHOLSON: But I kind of like giving an example cause it’s a little bit more concrete. MR. TAKABA: And you have engineers in different departments too. So that’s another group that could be consolidated. You have project managers in different departments that you can consolidate. We tried to do Mass Transit, the mechanics. That didn’t work. That never passed. MS. PROVALENKO: Why don’t we come back to it. MS. NICHOLSON: I’d rather just try to thrash out something now cause we can still come back to it later. How about, Consolidate similar functions such as project managers, engineers, maintenance personnel. But to go back to Patricia, does that commence under one department or consolidate under what? MS. PROVALENKO: Well what Bill was saying, it’s one thing under the janitors but then under the engineers, it wouldn’t be in Building facilities, though. So that would have to be different. MS. NICHOLSON: So, its under the appropriate department? 33 MS. PROVALENKO: You get engineers in three or four departments. MR. MATSUDA: Why don’t we just say, from different departments, cause we’re not being specific to any one department at this point. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. So we’ll just leave from different departments. MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah. I think the logistics would come about if it was actually going to take place. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. MS. WONG: Is there not a better word rather than different? All the departments or MS. NICHOLSON: Various departments. Various is probably better than different. On to MS. GARSON: Actually, if you go back to number 10, the mandated jobs. Shanell found it on page 8 of the minutes. And he says, “try to identify all those jobs and task that are mandated by state and federal government as well as those by our own Charter. And if itdoesn’t fall within one of those mandates, I have a very, very strong motive to see whether it’s possible that we shouldn’t eliminate it.” MS. NICHOLSON: Actually I kind of like that. It makes more sense now. What page is that? MS. GARSON: Page 8. The top of page 8. MS. NICHOLSON: So we could say, Try to identify all those jobs and tasks that are mandated by State and Federal governments as well as in the CountyCharter and consider eliminating positions that don’t fall within those mandates. How’s that for this version of this draft? And then we’ll see if it makes sense next time we look at these. MS. GARSON: One more thing. E -the Staffing/Consolidations, you did not give a summary. You didn’t turn itinto a suggestion or recommendation. MS. NICHOLSON: Ken? MR. ARMOUR: You did well on the last one? MS. NICHOLSON: I can’t remember what we did for the last one. MS. GARSON: You had suggest Countyexamine their policies on travel and vehicle use. The one before that was suggest a review of the reimbursement and per diem policies. MS. NICHOLSON: How about something about –Review current staffing and explore opportunities for staff consolidation. 34 MS. PROVALENKO: Sounds good. MS. NICHOLSON: Now under Miscellaneous, how do we want to phrase miscellaneous? Ken this is definitely yours. MR. ARMOUR: Well, let’s go through them and see if they’re still miscellaneous and then come back to the topic. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. We’re on F1. F2. This will change depending on where we end up with –we may end up with the whole boards and commissions section, so for now, should we just leave this as is? F3. MR. ARMOUR: That one is one that goes back to the other one. MS. NICHOLSON: Eileen’s. I think the technology plan and video conferencing are two different things. Should we just leave this as is for now and maybe Eileen would want to expand upon it? MR. ARMOUR: Okay. MS. NICHOLSON: F4. I think we just want to put -Continue to update and enforce the County’s internet use policy for all employees. F5. It would just be -Implement the use of Laserfiche, video conferencing, multimedia communication in lieu of face-to-face meetings where/when practical. MS. PROVALENKO: But wouldn’t that go back into then under travel and vehicle? Hold department division meetings via video conferencing and use Skype for video conferencing. MS. NICHOLSON: I don’t know. What do you think? MS. PROVALENKO: I think it goes hand-in-hand. MS. NICHOLSON: Do we like this wording better than the other? Or we can combine too, so that it’s actually what we now have for number 5 instead of saying where/when practical we say –to reduce travel time expenses. MS. GARSON: Laserfiche doesn’t like fit in. MS. NICHOLSON: That’s right. It’s totally different. MS. GARSON: It’s a document imaging system. It’s almost like the second half that starts video conferencing, multimedia communication, that’s more similar to your travel ones, but Laserfiche is a different issue. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. So let’s take the video conferencing, multimedia communication in lieu of a face-to-face meetings to reduce on and off island travel. And then we will address the Laserfiche as a separate item. And I don’t know what to say 35 about it because I still don’t quite know how this is going to benefit the County. So maybe for now we should just put -Implement the use of Laserfiche for all departments when and where practical and leave it at that for now. How’s that? Work? MS. PROVALENKO: Works. MS. NICHOLSON: Number 6. How about we start by saying just –Solicit employee input on a regular basis. MR. ARMOUR: Instead of input would suggestions be better? Suggestions/recommendations. MS. NICHOLSON: Good. So -Solicit employees suggestions and recommendations on a regular basis including cost saving suggestions. Okay. Number 7. We’re getting towards the end but we still need to go back to Department-specific suggestions. So, Number 7, you like that as is? Number 8, that work? Okay, now let’s go back to Department-specific suggestions. We’re almost there. MS. PROVALENKO: I have to leave in about 10 minutes. MS. NICHOLSON: Do we want to do the Department-specific suggestions at the next meeting? So go over the rest of the agenda items now. MS. PROVALENKO: There’s like two pages. MS. NICHOLSON: There are a fair number of them. Yes, there are 22 of them. Okay so we’re going to put the D. Department-specific suggestions on the agenda for next time specifically. Well, actually MS. WONG: D which became E. MS. NICHOLSON: But we’re sort of looking at all of these each time anyway. DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE PLACED IN DRAFT REPORT: MS. NICHOLSON: We don’t have any other items that came up today. DISCUSSION REGARDING APPROACH TO TAKE TO TIMELY ACCOMPLISH MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: MS. NICHOLSON: Any suggestions, recommendations on Agenda Item 10? MS. WONG: I’d like to pose on that item that we’re holding up till the next meeting, the department-specific maybe you could, over the interim, look at that and come up with drafts so that we’re ready for the next meeting. MS. NICHOLSON: So review those items? 36 MS.WONG: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. Anything else on Agenda Item 10? DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE MEETING DATES: MS. NICHOLSON: Okay. Future Meeting Dates. I will be gone for both of the meeting in February. Do we know anyone else that’s going to be gone? MS. PROVALENKO: I’m going to be gone for the first one in February. MS. NICHOLSON: So, as long as everyone else including Eileen can make it there will still be a quorum? MS. GARSON: No, there won’t be a quorum. th MS. NICHOLSON: So we’re canceling the 11. We’re modifying the February meeting date. Patricia, could you make a different day like in a week? th MS. PROVALENKO: I could possibly make it on the 15. But I’d have to do some stuff. I’ve got some clients and that’s why I’m having a hard time. MS. NICHOLSON: I think we’re trying to look at Wednesdays or Fridays. th MS. PROVALENKO: The 18is a furlough. MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. WONG: So, are we going with just one meeting in February? MS. NICHOLSON: Gives you a little more time to put your summary together. I guess th so. So the 25, which I will not be at. th MR. MATSUDA: So, you’re looking at the 16? th MS. NICHOLSON: No. We’re just looking at one meeting in February which is the 25. MR. MATSUDA: Okay. MS. GARSON: And again, Madam Chair, do you want all the commission members then to be able to e-mail Sandy and ask that itemsbe placed on the agenda for Item 8. MS. NICHOLSON: We’re on agenda 11 now. MS. GARSON: Yeah. I realize that, but now that we don’t have that meeting date, it’s really going back to 10 and timely accomplishing your mandate. My suggestion would be that between, because we’re only going to have one meeting now. If a board member is reviewing all the materials and there’s another suggestion that you would 37 want to be added to the list, if we actually put it on that agenda, you can at least discuss it. MS. NICHOLSON: So, we just add it to the list and then we would MS. GARSON: But we’ll put it under 8 so you’ll know that you haven’t seen it before. I guess the danger in that is you’re going to get suggestions from all of your different commission members and we’ll just put it on 8 for discussion. MS. NICHOLSON: I think that’s a good suggestion. I don’t think that there’s going to be a flood of suggestions from any individual commission members, but I would welcome any other suggestions that come. So as long as we can separate them out and then we haven’t seen them and talked about it yet. MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: So, I believe we’ve confirmed March 11 and March 23. MS. GARSON: Oh see, I was actually talking about 12. MS. NICHOLSON: I wondered where that came from. April 8. I will not be at the th second meeting in April, which is on the 20. So we’re looking at May now. Now we’re confirming May 13 and May 27. May 27 is the Friday before the Memorial Day holiday just in case anyone has an issue with that. And the June meeting, we moved the first meeting in June to June 8. th MS. PROVALENKO: I won’t be here for the 24of June. MS. NICHOLSON: That’s our final meeting. MS. PROVALENKO: I know, but I’m not going to be here. I’m not going to be in the state. MS. NICHOLSON: All right. So, the fact that we’ve cancelled the first meeting in February does change our schedule a little bit because that means that letter going out to all of the departments, we had a response deadline of February 28, but because the th meeting is not until the 25, that moves everything back considerably. So, we still want to MS. GARSON: But we weren’t going to send out the letter until you had the meeting anyway. MS. NICHOLSON: Right. So do we still all want to approve that list and have a meeting before the letter goes out? Because now the deadline is going to have to be the end of March so we’re not going look at the responses until April. MS. WONG: Does this commission want to consider adding a day in March or April since we don't have two meeting in February? 38 MS. NICHOLSON: Do you have a suggested date? ndth th MS. WONG: The 2or 16of March might be options? I’m thinking that the 4and th 18are furlough Fridays. Is that correct? MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. NICHOLSON: The second would probably be a little too early if we’re trying to get some feedback from those departments. So the option would probably be March 16 and then we have two Wednesdays in a row, which poses a problem with putting items on the agenda. So it would almost force us to move the meeting that we’ve now moved rdththth to the 23of March to maybe to the 30, so it would be the 11and the 16, which ththth means we wouldn’t add anything to the agenda. 11, 16and 30. What’s your pleasure folks? I think it would be better to look at February and see if there’s a meeting we could add in February so we could get that letter out earlier. To me that’s thth the crunch. I’m leaving on Wednesday the 9and returning on Tuesday the 15and thth leaving again on February 19 and probably coming back on the 26. So I could do 16 th instead of the 11. How does that work for people? February 16. Could we meet then? MR. MATSUDA: I’m not going to be here. I’m going to be out of state. MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah, I’m having a hard time with it too. Cause it’s really hard for me to say right now. I have some clients coming in to town who I have to spend time with. And I don’t know the agenda yet. I don’t know what my calendar is going to look like. MS. NICHOLSON: Well, our other option would be, I mean what we’re trying to do is get that letter out to the departments so we could basically let Gloria send out the letter. MS. WONG: The committee. MS. NICHOLSON: Yeah. Her committee send out the letter to the departments so that we can get the feedback. MS. PROVALENKO: Right. I understand that, but couldn’t, once she’s put that together couldn’t we receive an e-mail of it and respond individually back to you? MS. NICHOLSON: It’s the summary of the potential consolidations and then the cover letter that will go out with it. MS. PROVALENKO: I’d like to see the summary, that’s the key for me, just to see what the summary is. We won’t talk to anybody, but just MS. GARSON: I think that’s the communication itself, outside of the committee, then you’re having, even if you’re just looking at it and explain to me, it’s like you’re having a discussion or deliberation about it outside of a noticed meeting. 39 MS. NICHOLSON: If the communication is sent from the subcommittee, I have no problem with just letting the subcommittee send out the communication. MS. PROVALENKO: Okay. I’m finewith that. If the subcommittee sends it out that’s fine with me, more so than the whole commission. MS. NICHOLSON: And so then, it would become a subcommittee report back. MS. PROVALENKO: That would work well. MS. NICHOLSON: So, does that work for you two to do it as a subcommittee? MS. WONG: Yeah, if it came from Bill, yes. MS. NICHOLSON: So that way, I feel less pressured in trying to sneak in another meeting. MS. PROVALENKO: No, I think that’s, because I’m concerned about the consolidations,and what each commission does and how they can interact, and so I think if Bill’s a part of it, I’d feel much inaudible. MS. WONG: So besides the summary, I would have to write the cover letter? MS. NICHOLSON: I think we have it mostly written right? Because we’re asking for MS. GARSON: We’re sending it to the department heads. MS. NICHOLSON: And we’re asking them to also look at the meeting schedules for those groups and also looking at these potential consolidations or any other consolidations they may suggest. We kind of got off of our Future Meeting Dates but they can tell us later inaudible agendas were okay. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT AGENDA: MS. NICHOLSON: Items to be Placed on the Next Agenda. Well, it still won’t be those reports because we will still have a response date around the last of February or so, any items to be placed on the next agenda? MS. WONG: I understand the mayor will want to attend atthe next meeting? MR. MATSUDA: We’re not going to have it. MS. GARSON: The mayor had indicated an interest in coming to the next meeting but th that was when it was February 11. If he’s available on the 25, we can place him on the agenda. MS. NICHOLSON: And we still wanted to try to get Mr. Tanouye to address his letter. Anything else on the agenda that’s different than our standard items? 40 ANNOUNCEMENTS: MS. NICHOLSON: The next meeting of the Cost of Government Commission will be held on Friday, February 25, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in the Liquor Control Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Centre, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, Hawai‘i96720. ADJOURNMENT: MS. NICHOLSON: Meeting adjourned. 12:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Arriola 41