Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-08 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 – As Amended Friday, October 8, 2010 – 10:00 a.m. Department of Liquor Control Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 CALL TO ORDER MS. WONG: The meeting will now come to order. It’s 10:09. Present:Excused: Kenneth Armour Marilyn Nicholson Glen Matsuda Eileen O’Hara Patricia Provalenko Gloria Wong William Takaba, ex-officio Also present: Kathy Garson Emarie Carvalho Sandy Arriola Colleen Schrandt STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: MS. WONG: Any statements from the public? None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MS. WONG: Is there an approval for the minutes? MR. MATSUDA: So moved. MS. PROVALENKO: Second. Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer MS. WONG: Any discussion? Actually I had a discussion. On page 20, just a word correction. It says bucket. And that’s something that I said. And what I said was buck atinstead of bucket. Any other discussion? MS. PROVALENKO: I have some. One notation, my name is spelled wrong. It’s ko instead of co. MS. GARSON: Your name? MS. PROVALENKO: Yes. MS. WONG: Anything else? MS. GARSON: Okay, so we’ll just take those as amendments to the minutes. MS. WONG: Is there a motion for the amendments to the corrections? MOTION:MR. MATSUDA: Move to amend. MR. ARMOUR: Second. MS. WONG : Minutes are approved as amended. MS. GARSON: Move to amend. Second by Kenneth, and then you take a vote, that amendment is in, then we vote on the amended minutes. MS. WONG: Let’s take a vote. ACTION ON MOTION: All: Aye. MS. WONG: All those opposed? (None). It is approved as amended. MS. GARSON: Okay, that was the approval of the amendment, now you’re going to vote on the minutes. So it would be all those in favor of adopting the minutes as amended. MS. WONG: All those in favor of approval of the minutes as amended say aye. ACTION ON MOTION: All: Aye. MS. WONG: All those opposed? (None). It is so moved. CORRESPONDENCE MS. WONG: The fourth item on the agenda is the Correspondence. And just to check your agenda, because I have two sets of agenda, one marked Friday, October 8. We have correspondence from A to AF. Is there a motion to receive the correspondence in total? 2 MS. GARSON: It’s up to you to receive and file all of them. And then once that motion is pending on the table then you can go and discuss anyone. That might be easier than moving for each one. MS. WONG: Is there a motion? MOTION:MR. MATSUDA: So moved. MS. PROVALENKO: Second. MS. GARSON: So, there’s a motion on the floor to accept and file the communications, so now will there be any discussion. And maybe you want to go down from the top. MS. WONG: Discussion starting from A. I would just like to comment that our committee, Glen, myself and Bill, met with Ron Takahashi. We both will be meeting with Ron Takahashi, I’m sorry. Item B, any comments from that? Item C, any comments on that? I’d like to comment that we’ll be meeting with Nancy Crawford on the twelfth. Item D, any comments on that? Item E, any comments from that? Items F from anonymous, any comments on that? Item G, Kelly Greenwell, any comments for that? Item H from Ken Goodenow, any comments from that? Item I, from Qince Mento, any comments from that? Item J from anonymous, any comments from that? Item K from Lincoln Ashida, any comments from that? Items L through N from Anonymous, any comments from that? Item O from Scott Leonard, any comments from that? MR. MATSUDA: I will be discussing our discussion with Scott Leonard in my report. MS. WONG: Item P from Bradley Westervelt, any comments for that? I’d like to make comment in, I believe it was that response, he had mentioned a research from Mr. Yagong and we would like to, I think there has been a request to get information on the findings from Mr. Yagong’s survey of the county employees to receive, when we were asked . . . MS. GARSON: Maybe I can help. In communication 2010-106, Mr. Westervelt made reference to, Mr. Yagong spent a great deal of energy and letterhead polling all county employees for suggestions on how to save money. More than one board member had asked for that report, for me to get the report. What I told the members was that to bring it up at this meeting, and make sure that that request was okay with all of the commission members and if it was, that we would send a communication on commission letterhead to Councilman Yagong requesting that information. I was a little hesitant to send a request to a councilmember just because a couple of people wanted it since the letter would be coming from the commission in general. So, what the vice chair is asking is basically for approval to send that communication to Mr. Yagong asking for the results of that poll. MR. MATSUDA: Do we make a motion at this time? 3 MS. GARSON: I don’t think it’s something that really warrants a motion. It’s just that is it the consensus give the authority to go ahead and send that communication on behalf of the commission to Councilman Yagong requesting that information. MR. MATSUDA: I agree. MS. O’HARA: I concur. It makes sense. MS. GARSON: Okay. Thank you. MS. WONG: Moving on to Item Q, Lori Enomoto. Any comments from that? Item R, Anonymous, any comments from that? Item S from Stephen Arnett, any comments for that? Item T, Anonymous, any comments on that? Item U, Anonymous, any comment on that? Item V, Concerned Firefighters, County of Hawaii, any comments on that? Item W, from Anonymous, any comments on that? Item X Correspondence to Departments? MS. GARSON: We gave those communication numbers. I believe that’s the correspondence that the commission sent out requesting follow up information from that department. MS. WONG: Item Y, response from Burt Tsuchiya, any comments for that? Response from Randall Kurohara? MR. MATSUDA: I will also be making a report on our discussion we had with Randy Kurohara. MS. WONG: Item AA from Margaret Horwatt, any comment from that? Item AB from Milton Pavao, any comment from that? Item AC from Steven Pavao, any comments from that? Item AD, Penny Fox, any comment from that? Item AE from Fred Housel, any comment for that? Item AF from Frank DeMarco, any comment for that? MS. GARSON: Okay, so given that, there would be a motion on the floor to accept and file these communications and you ask to vote on the motion because there is a pending motion to accept and file. MS. WONG: All in favor of accepting and taking them to file all the correspondence responses as commented on. ACTION ON MOTIONAll: Aye. : MS. WONG: All those oppose? (None) It is so moved. MR. TAKABA: Do we have any outstanding departments? MS. CARVALHO : Yes we do. MR. TAKABA: Who would that be? 4 MS. CARVALHO: I have to get the list from upstairs. I don’t have the list with me right now. I have to get it. MR. TAKABA: Can you email it to me? MS. CARVALHO: Yes. MS. O’HARA: Are you talking about the response to the initial letter? MR. TAKABA: Yeah. We sent to the departments that questionnaire, and I just wanted to know who didn’t submit it yet so that I can email them to let them know that we still need it. I think Office of Aging was one of them. MS. WONG: Bobby Jean, I think did not respond yet. MR. TAKABA: Planning? I’ll wait for her to give me the full list. The other thing is you said you were going to meet with Finance, the committee. As they come in, I’ve been sharing the responses with Finance including the anonymous ones because this is public record, right? MS. GARSON: Yes. MR. TAKABA: So, I’ve been sharing it with them because they are in the budget process right now. And there may do things in there that they may want to look at from the departments because if we can implement certain things now rather than next year that would help. MS. GARSON: When we get to number six you can talk about it. MR. TAKABA: Okay. REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES A.Operations, Budget, Policy and Consolidation (G. Wong, G. Matsuda) MS. WONG: Moving on to Item 5, Report first from Operations, Budget, Policy and Consolidation. Glen and I are in that committee. Glen will be making the report, oral report. MS. GARSON: And just a reminder that what this is, is the report, so there’s not going to be any discussion at this meeting of all of the things contained in the report. We will agendize for the next meeting, discussion and possible action on report given on 10/8. So this is just a presentation. MR. MATSUDA: We discussed with Mr. Kurohara. We had a meeting with him on September 28 at the office of Bill Takaba, which had very good surroundings. Thank you, Bill. The discussions basically were regarding his letter and comments and recommendations that were made, and what I think that I got of it mostly was regarding the use of the laser fische, which I think maybe all departments should be having 5 whether it be scanning, storing files to help preserve the critical documents and the various meetings held. From the gist of it, I got that this will basically streamline any or all departments’ operations including the director of R&D, Research and Development. Now, it was to my understanding that the Corporation Counsel office currently uses this method. Apparently there is a cost to having such a system set up whether it be a program fee or an annual fee. I have no idea. But because the Corporation Counsel currently uses it, I think that there are individuals in that office that can help and train the individuals involved in utilizing this particular process. So with that alone, that’s a big hurdle that I think that is resolved in a sense that now we have somebody already familiar with it, let’s utilize the individuals involved. How specific it will be, how difficult it would be, I have no idea. This was one of the ideas that was given by Randy. Other was to have maybe monthly staff meetings. Meetings via the VCC which is available. I don’t know where it’s available in the county, video conferencing, conference calling, etc., telephone call. This was also discussed. Because I think they need to have out of district meetings because since most of their staff are involved with multitude of various types of projects. So to have everybody meet all in one place, it’s very hard to do. So, the VCC, the telephone conferencing will assist them. Now one area which I was not necessarily surprised, but was interesting to me was that the department of Research and Development currently does not write their own grants, the grant writing for various projects and programs. Instead they have a grant specialist which informs the public of possible funding sources. But for the purposes of R&D, I think they need to seek and write grants specific to their upcoming needs even if it means training one or two, well one person to write grants or having someone seek and write grants for them. And even contracting a grant writer because I see that as these funds are in essence free monies that the county does not have to provide, the county doesn’t have to provide any money but the county will reap the benefits in the future to come from these grant monies. So therefore I think by even having someone do this and utilizing and look for the monies, I think it’s going to be a win-win situation. Health care and educational industries were also discussed. Because as it seems now, these industries, they have a significant potential for any kind of economic gain or whether it be through grant writing, additional funding for the County of Hawai‘i, and this is where I think maybe the County of Hawai‘i should start focusing on. This was just a tip of the iceberg but this is what was discussed in regards to that. I can go on and on and on regarding that but I’m going to cut it at that. Regarding our discussion with Scott Leonard, who is an employee of the Planning Department. I don’t know if I mentioned, but Randy Kurohara is the Director of R&D. Scott Leonard is an employee of the Planning Department. Scott too, supports the immediate implementation of the laser fische, the VCC, in lieu of face-to-face meetings where and when practical. What was very interesting in our discussions in addition to his long three or four page letter recommendations, was that he recommended that there be, to assist in monies a one time salvage fee of $150 that can be assessed at any point or at the point of purchase of a new car or when registering your own vehicle annually. This was discussed and very briefly. It seemed like a good idea but we’ll see how it comes out. Another discussion which Scott unveiled a desire to promote a proper construction of homes. I think this is a very good idea. Whether it’s going to be implemented is another question. But he called it a type two home construction. His 6 responses were very specific to his recommendations. This in itself will increase property taxes by encouraging individuals to obtain building permits if you can have such a type two building permit. But it will also start eventually resulting in revenues to the county in the form of real property tax. Now Scott had many ideas if you have seen and read his recommendations. I did want to discuss that he be invited to a commission meeting to further discuss his recommendations and elaborate on his recommendations. He did agree to present to our committee and recommend that he was giving recommendation for our committee or to the body, the commission, at our next commission meeting. When, I do not know. This body can decide if so and when, and I believe we can do that, Kathy, correct? Invite him to a commission meeting. MS. GARSON: Items to be placed on the next agenda. MR. MATSUDA: Okay, so on the next agenda. But he agreed to come and speak at our commission meeting and he’d be glad to speak at the commission meeting. He’s a very good speaker. I believe it would be very good for the commission to hear him, as I’m sure the commission members will have a lot of questions. If there’s anything I missed, Gloria, please say so at this time. I just put together what my thoughts were. MS. WONG: Well, I want to make sure that everyone received the committee written report. If you have any questions or comments on that at this time. MS. GARSON: Actually, so you passed out the report, again, the next agenda it will be the discussion of that report. MS. WONG: Bill, do you have any comments on the meetings? MR. TAKABA: No. I think you did a good job on the report. And Glen too. It’s fine. MS. WONG: Let’s move on to the next committee report, Revenue Enhancement. Before we move on, I don’t remember in categories of our committee, it says operations, budget, policy and consolidation. I don’t remember, although it is in the minutes, that policy was part of it. And it seems like a lot to have four different categories although they’re intertwined. MS. GARSON: When you get to six and your discussion of approach, if you want to tweak the committee, we’ll discuss it. MS. WONG: Okay, thank you. B.Revenue Enhancement and Collections (K. Armour, P. Provalenko) MS. WONG: The next committee report, Revenue Enhancement and Collections, Ken and Patricia. MR. ARMOUR: We did not have an opportunity to meet so therefore we don’t have a report for today’s meeting. We’re scheduled to meet right after this meeting. C.Technology Recommendations and Adoption (E. O’Hara, M. Nicholson) 7 MS. WONG: Third committee is Technology Recommendations and Adoption, Eileen and Marilyn. Marilyn is not here. MS. O’HARA: Marilyn and I were not able to meet this time either. We did communicate by email. I had made a recommendation about developing a matrix so that we could analyze the comments that we’ve received so far from department heads and other individuals in the county. And I’m working on doing that myself just to demonstrate what the concept is. We have some recommendations on meetings. I’m not really sure what her schedule is at this point and when she’ll be available again. But we need to schedule a couple of meetings. MS. GARSON: Do you want to report, she has, you have meetings with people within the county scheduled? MS. O’HARA: Yes. MS. GARSON: Okay. MS. O’HARA: She had suggested that we meet with the head of Data Systems. That was where she wanted to start. DISCUSSION REGARDING APPROACH TO TAKE TO TIMELY ACCOMPLISH MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MS. WONG: So moving on to item six, Discussions Regarding Approach To Take To Timely Accomplish Mandate of the Cost of Government Commission. Comments on that? I’ll start. One of the reasons on our committee report that I put who we’re meeting with so that we’re not asking to meet, different committees asking to meet with the same person. If the other committees would like to maybe participate when we meet with people on the 12th. MS. GARSON: And that would be a problem. MS. O’HARA: That would be a problem? MS. GARSON: If you want more than your committee to be at the meeting, you have to do it then invite them to the commission meeting so that everybody can discuss it. MS. WONG: Okay, thank you for clarifying it. MS. GARSON: But that’s something that you should discuss now.If there is any particular department or department head that you want to come to or employee that you want to all ask questions, then to invite them to be at one of these meetings would be the proper thing to do. MS. WONG: Are there any other department heads or any of the responses that came in that you would like to ask to speak besides Scott Leonard’s? 8 MS. PROVALENKO: I think that our committee, we have to get together and figure out what we’re doing first before we do that because even inviting a department, I mean we’re all in charge of different portions. We’re not ready to ask any questions. I think it’s premature to ask that. MS. WONG: We were sent the calendar. I think that maybe at this point we can look at the calendar. Friday seems to be not an easy day to have the commission meetings. But that’s what we had set on at the first meeting. MS. GARSON: Do you want to discuss anything else on six or are you moving on? Subcommittee progress, problems, did you want to take policy out of your committee? MS. WONG: I just kind of think what about our approach can we do better to accomplish what we’re doing here. MS. O’HARA: I think you might be going to like establishing a timeline. Is that why you were considering the meeting dates? I think that’s a good thing. We all work better with deadlines for the subcommittees. Perhaps we should establish a deadline for us to do our initial investigation cause that will set the stage for who we want to invite to the full commission for further information. So, I think that’s a good idea to look at a timeline. MS. WONG: When would be a good deadline? MS. O’HARA: Perhaps the end of November? That gives us – do we have two meetings in November? MS. PROVALENKO: That was part of why we look at meeting dates. MR. ARMOUR: The next one is the day after Thanksgiving. MS. O’HARA: We have a meeting the day after Thanksgiving? I’m not here. MS. GARSON: Actually that’s why Item 7 is on there. Marilyn asked that we put Discussion of Future Meeting Dates on there because especially she was looking at the holidays and thinking that that wasn’t going to work anyway. And again your commission only has the six people. I haven’t heard of anybody else being suggested yet. So, if you know now you’re not going to be present perhaps we should just reschedule and set a tentative date for the meeting. MS. O’HARA: Well, how about the first meeting in December as the deadline? MS. WONG: The deadline for the committee reports? MS. O’HARA: Deadline for what the committee’s doing, the investigation, initial investigation so you know whatever report you may want to bring to the full commission. MS. WONG: First meeting in December? 9 MS. O’HARA: It’s tentatively scheduled for December 10. So, question for Kathy – for us to discuss the subcommittee reports, they have to be provided at the meeting before the action taken? MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. O’HARA: So that means we wouldn’t be able to take action till January according to our schedule. MS. GARSON: Right. MS. O’HARA: That’s a little tight. Maybe we should up it to the first week in November, the first meeting in November. November 12? MR. MATSUDA: But because you haven’t met yet, would it be problem? MS. O’HARA: We’re just going to have to work hard in the next month. MS. PROVALENKO: You’ve got the departments that you want to look to. I think that’s pushing it a little soon. MS. O’HARA: Cause if we don’t make decisions on these recommendations from the subcommittees till January, and then decide who we want to bring in for the full commission meetings, well I guess we can do that. We’re good until June? We have to have our report by June. MS. GARSON: The committees were established to make things easier so you could meet on your own outside of a meeting but don’t forget that an option is just to have them come to the meeting and do your discussion. And that’s not a problem because the person is here, you’ve agendized that they’re coming here to discuss it. You can have your open discussion right then and there. You do not have to wait. MS. WONG: But you know when you meet separately and the minutes are not being taken and it’s not been taken verbatim, there’s more flexibility for people to respond. MS. GARSON: Yeah. I mean it’s just a suggestion on how the timing works for you. MS. O’HARA: Well also like Gloria’s committee has already provided a report that we can take action on at the next meeting so if we decide for instance to invite Scott Leonard, that could occur sooner rather than waiting till January. So as the committees take action and provide reports on their actions we can take action on that. MS. GARSON: Right. And with the report, it mentions items that might be appropriate to have Data come to that meeting cause there were two issues – the laser fische issue and the video conferencing issue, which I assume would be also related to Data. MS. O’HARA: It is. 10 nd MS. GARSON: So, if you were going to have a quorum on the 22 that might be a possibility for you to invite the head of Data or someone from that department that day. MS. O’HARA: Sounds good to me. Cause that kind of crosses over basically all three categories so it might be a good place to start. MS. WONG: On our committee, getting back to the four items on our title, I’m a little bit more comfortable taking policy off of our category. Is there any discussion or comments on that? If not, I’d like to. MOTION:MR. MATSUDA: So moved. MS. PROVALENKO: Second. MS. WONG: It has been moved and seconded to amend the committee title as Operations, Budget and Consolidation. All those in favor? MS. GARSON: Any discussion. MS. WONG: Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. ACTION ON MOTION: All: Aye. MS. WONG: All those oppose say nay. (None) It is so moved to amend the committee to Operations, Budget and Consolidation. MS. GARSON: Okay, so before you move on off of 6A, is there anything our office can do to provide further information? Or do you want requests to go out for any further information from the commission to anyone? MS. WONG: I think Bill will be contacting those that have not responded so far. MR. TAKABA: Yes. MS. WONG: Are there any comments to the MR. TAKABA: Did anybody submit subsequent to the last meeting. Because I kind of recall, Public Works is not on this but I thought I saw Public Works come through. MS. ARRIOLA: There’s a few more that turned in. MR. TAKABA: But some did turn in. MS. ARRIOLA: We have about five or six more. MS. CARVALHO: She’s going to email you an update, cause I don’t have copies of who else turned in. 11 MR. TAKABA: Yeah, so there may be some on this list that actually submitted. Because I don’t want to bug them if they did. MS. CARVALHO: Yeah. MS. GARSON: So what we can do is we’ll communicate with you after this meeting and let you know who we haven’t received responses from. MR. TAKABA: And you know, Immigration, maybe you should scratch that because it comes under the Mayor’s Office and so when we did the report for the Mayor’s Office, we brought them in to our response. MS. GARSON: Okay. MS. O’HARA: I have a question too about responses when we send out the second request for information to those who had received Cost of Government Commission recommendations last time, are we logging how much response, that went out to what about, was it seven or eleven? MR. TAKABA: Yeah, quite a few. MS. CARVALHO: Eight. MS. O’HARA: Eight departments, and I know we’ve gotten one back from Department of Environmental Management. Have we gotten another response? MS. CARVALHO: One from Water and there’s going to be some on the next agenda. So, I can keep a log of who responded. MS. O’HARA: Yeah, those are kind of important pieces of information that would be helpful. MS. WONG: The letter that is going out to Mr. Yagong, if he wants to come and make a statement to the commission, can he just request that? Instead of providing a written response, can he just request to speak at the meeting? MS. GARSON: He could just come. Do you want the letter to say provide us or attend? MS. WONG: Does anyone want to suggest that he attend? My feeling is that sometimes when you get a whole lot of data and you have to put it into summary, you miss some of the flavor of the responses. And I don’t know how much of data he received but it seems to have been remembered. MR. TAKABA: I think at a minimum we should at least get the results or copies of whatever he received. MS. WONG: A letter has been 12 MS. O’HARA: I guess what you’re asking is should we ask if he or someone from his office can attend to clarify what’s in his submittal. MS. PROVALENKO: But could we like get the information first, review it and then request explanation? MS. WONG: The letter asks for MS. GARSON: The letter just asks for information. MS. PROVALENKO: Right, and after we get the information then we can decide. MS. WONG: Okay. Another comment, I went online and found the years of minutes from previous commissions. A lot of reading but it was very interesting to me to see that things that we’re going through, discussions, it’s been discussed, been there, done that. Some hurdles that they had to get over and it’s online. Our minutes are online. Anything else that anyone might consider something useful to help our committees move along or accomplishing the mandate? MS. O’HARA: I have one thing, and I’m not really sure how to bring this up so it fits within the discussion. We have the subcommittee approach that we’re taking and we also are looking at the overall duties or obligations of government to provide services. And one thing that kind of arches over all of this is the manner in which we carry out our government procurement process. The contracting end of things. I’m just wondering as a separate subject if that can be kind of looked at because it impacts cost of government at all different levels. And we are bound to state laws in terms of procurement process, but there still may be ways to improve the internal process of contracting within the county, not only the actual contracting process but also the administering of the contract, the oversight of the contract, etc., that could potentially save the county lots of money. So I just throw that out as a big item. MS. WONG: Perhaps that will be included in some of the investigations with the first two committees. MS. O’HARA: I think it needs kind of it’s own focus because I think it’s big item and we’re talking big dollar amounts. It can impact the cost of the county government. MS. WONG: So, are you suggesting another committee? MS. O’HARA: Oh heavens. MR TAKABA: Policy. MS. GARSON: Well, another thing you can do is invite someone from Purchasing or Finance to your next meeting to give you an overview of government procurement and contracting. And that might give you other ideas, cause I don’t know if all of the members are familiar with the government’s contract data and procurement laws. You worked for county and state so you understand, but maybe one of the first thing is what the laws are and how the county deals with the contracts, might be helpful. 13 MS. O’HARA: And I got to say, what Bill said, it’s really about policy. I mean there is the law and we have to follow the law. But there is also the framework that we have devised as a county to pursue contracts. And it can be exceedingly cumbersome. But that’s just the acquiring the contracts side. Then there is the administering the contract and there’s just not a real coherent system within the county.It certainly is not flawless, let’s put it that way. And because of that, we do incur substantial additional cost in our contracting. And so perhaps it is a policy discussion. I’m not really sure. MR. TAKABA: Well, one thing we could do is, I think you’re starting to identify areas that you want to focus on. One was like technology. You wanted Data Systems to come in and explain how Data Systems or technology can be improved in the county. And maybe another one would be procurement and contracting. That would be another topic. There may be others and we could possibly dedicate one meeting to having people come in and just explain how government operates in these areas. And then whatever committee has to follow up with will do their follow up. But it seems like we’re talking about, like if it’s procurement, it would be more like operations. It would fall under the Operations, Budgeting Committee. MR. MATSUDA: If we’re having the individuals like you mentioned, coming to the commission, maybe the committee should be the whole commission – everybody. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. MS. O’HARA: Oh yeah. MR. TAKABA: They could make presentations to the group as opposed to doing it department by department. If you took functional areas and, if this commission would identify areas that you want to learn more about from whoever deals with it, then that could be a good start. And you could do it, depending on how many topics you have, you could do it in one meeting and just devote that meeting to listening to these areas of concern. MS. WONG: Let me ask, you’ve worked with the county, you’ve worked with state, I’ve worked with the state and federal. I think the majority does have an understanding of procurement contracting in local government. MS. O’HARA: And I think that that’s a good start. Our knowledge may be real specific to our experiences there. I don’t know how things are done today in 2010. MR. TAKABA: Same. MS. O’HARA: I left the county in 2006, and so policy may have changed a little bit. But I also worked for businesses that are under contract with the county and so I’ve seen that side of it too. Things are not always done in a timely manner. And there are a lot issues. And so is there an overall policy about how the county handles contracts? Is DPW on a different track then the other departments still in terms of procurement? How that all works, I mean, hearing the presentation is important from the procurement department to get an understanding, but it’s also a good idea to get the feedback from 14 the various departments cause some find this process easier than others. And for whatever reasons we need to identify what those reasons are. But there is some tightening up that has to be done to improve the quality of services that we get under contract. Like I said, the contracting process is one thing. But then ensuring that we get the quality of services that we’ve contracted for is another. And who is providing that oversight cause that then falls into the operations side of things. It’s something that needs to be looked at overall as a policy issue for the county I would think, to make it a little tighter and improve our cost savings. MS. GARSON: If there is somebody here you can ask them questions. MS. O’HARA: I guess it’s identifying who all we need. MR. TAKABA: You can look at, take Finance Department. It’s a staff agency. It services the county. Even like HR would service the county. That’s another staff agency. If you take these departments within the department, you would see like you mentioned procurement, the revenue generating committee might want to look at Real Property Tax Division and ask questions about that. How can we improve our revenue collections? Are the delinquencies too high? Things like that. There’s also other, like HR, you might want to have them discuss could the hiring process be improved? Things like that. Do we have to spend so much on advertising or whatever. But I think if you focus on a lot of the staff departments that serve the county, you could get several areas of discussion going. So, it’s up to the commission what they want to see and what kind of concerns you have. What you want to see explained better maybe. MS. O’HARA: Well, for the idea of looking at how the county’s contracting process goes from beginning to end. The entities involved would be Procurement on the front end. MR. TAKABA: And you mentioned contracting too, so that will involve maybe an attorney. MS. O’HARA: Is there an attorney that specific for the procurement? MS. GARSON: We all review contracts. The attorney for the Purchasing Division is Craig Masuda who is also an attorney for Public Works who does a lot of construction contracts. MR. TAKABA: Maybe two attorneys, one construction and the other one for, I don’t know who from your, is there somebody that really specializes in it? MS. GARSON: It’s primarily Craig Masuda. MR. TAKABA: Craig. Because he’s Purchasing. So procurement and contracting would be one. We already talked about technology. And that would be Data Systems. Corporation Counsel is heavily into laser fische. Maybe somebody who is most familiar with laser fische can explain what he or she feels. 15 MS. O’HARA: And that’s a question I have. I mean we have Data System as a staffing or service entity within the county, but within each department I would expect that the larger departments that there is a dedicated employee that interacts with Data. I mean whether it be the deputy director, whoever it is in each department that puts together their department’s technology plans that they have that interaction. Is that the case? That there is kind of somebody appointed in each department? MR. TAKABA: Yeah, but each department operates a little differently. A small department may do it through their accountant. A bigger department may do it with a professionally trained person in that area. Depending on the department and the size of the department. When I was at Office of Aging we had program people in each area doing contracts so no one person would do the contracts. Each person would do their own contracts. But I think that if you had like Craig and maybe Gilbert from Purchasing. We should ask Nancy too if we’re going to bring in Real Property Tax because that’s two of her divisions. So you want Real Property Tax too as the biggest revenue source of the county? MR. ARMOUR: Sure. And that was one of the things we were going to talk about in our committee. MS. O’HARA: And who is the head of Data? MR. TAKABA: Data Systems would be Burt Tsuchiya. MS. O’HARA: Okay. MS. WONG: When will these people be asked to attend? For the next meeting? MR. TAKABA: It’s up to the committee. If you want to have it all on one day to kick off the work of the committees of the commission then that’s possible. It’s up to you, the commission how they want to do this. MS. WONG: How many names do we have so far? MS. GARSON: Nancy Crawford and Gilbert Benevides who is the Purchasing Division Head, Craig Masuda who is the attorney for Purchasing, Real Property Tax Administrator and Burt Tsuchiya who is Data Systems Division Head. MS. WONG: So five. MS. O’HARA: Yet those extend different focuses. Like the contracting focus would be Purchasing and Craig Masuda? MR. TAKABA: So you want to know how we invest our money, we could have the Treasurer come over and talk to us for the revenue side. MS. O’HARA: So revenue would be more Nancy Crawford through the Real Property MR. TAKABA: No, the Treasurer would be Mike Okumoto. 16 MS. O’HARA: But I mean together kind of focusing on the revenue enhancement side. MR. TAKABA: Yes. MS. O’HARA: So those two people could be invited together. And then, what was the other one – technology, the head of Data Systems? Anybody else? MR. TAKABA: HR. If you want HR to come in. We’re kind of going through the agencies that service the county itself not the public, but more county. MS. O’HARA: So but for the Data, if we were to have a discussion strictly on acquiring technology and data systems and things, other then the head of Data, who else would we want to invite? MR. TAKABA: Depends on what kind of technology we’re looking at. Is it computers? Is it doing websites? MS. WONG: Did you have a suggestion? MS. SCHRANDT: I was just thinking in response to her question if you look at the major systems you also have the police system and some major systems that are actually quite separate within the county. So rather than just Burt from Data Systems you might want to invite representatives from the departments that have separate major systems. MS. GARSON: I think that would be Police, Prosecutors and the Office of Housing have independent data system. MS. O’HARA: Office of Housing? MR. TAKABA: Yes. It really depends. If you’re talking about computers that’s one thing. Then there are other departments. But if we’re talking about copy machines, I know that came out in the reports, they talked about copy machines. MS. O’HARA: Does Data put together a comprehensive plan for the county or they just do those departments that aren’t independent? MR. TAKABA: There are times that they do. The Council would ask for reports or plans. It’s not like a regular thing. MS. O’HARA: Yeah, this is my concern that we’re not going to really hit it by just bringing in Data Systems cause they deal more with the software, computers, printers. MS. GARSON: And Water Supply also has their own independent system. You could devote a meeting to Data and then have a representative from each of the other independent systems. 17 MS. O’HARA: Yeah. It would be nice if the county had an over arching technology plan that would pull all this together. Civil Defense probably has their own system as well. I mean they probably aren’t served by Data Systems are they? MR. TAKABA: I’m not sure. MS. O’HARA: So yeah, if we want to talk about the technology plan for the county and how that could save them money, I think we have to invite these different individuals to see how it all plays together. Or maybe that would be a focus for our meeting. MS. WONG: So Kathy, you’ll arrange that? MR. TAKABA: So we devote one meeting to technology? MS. O’HARA: One meeting to contracts. One meeting to technology. MR. TAKABA: Well contracts I think you can maybe have two MS. O’HARA: Two topics? MR. TAKABA: Yeah, two topics. I don’t see contracts and procurement as being a really long discussion. MS. GARSON: It depends on the questions that the commission have. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. If you feel like a burning desire to ask a lot of questions then we can spend more time. It doesn’t matter. It’s up to the commission how much time you want to devote. MS. O’HARA: Right. And what I’m seeing shape up is if we have a discussion whether it’s the whole meeting or we have more than one discussion at the meeting, on contracts it kind of aids and abets the subcommittee one, Operations, Budget and Consolidations a lot because these outside contracts are critical to operations. And if we had another meeting where we looked at the technology over arching technology plan of the county, that would coincide with subcommittee three’s mission. And the other one was revenue enhancements and this recommendation was to invite Nancy, and the Treasurer. MR. TAKABA: The Treasurer, the Real Property Tax Director. MS. O’HARA: And that would help with that subcommittee’s mission. Maybe that’s something that we could decide to do over the calendar that we have. MR. TAKABA: The other thing is then on the other side, you got delinquencies. I don’t want to point to any one department but it’s come up before where there are some concerns like Environmental Management where you have uncollected landfill and wastewater charges. You may want to call in Environmental Management to talk about, and I think they’re working with, who’s working with them from Corporation Counsel? 18 MS. GARSON: Molly Lugo. MR. TAKABA: Molly. They may have some insight on – that always comes up. I’ve seen it a lot of times in council. They bring it up and reports come out. Maybe Colleen would say something about it. MS. SCHRANDT : No. MR. TAKABA: But that’s an area that there’s been some concern. Real Property Tax has delinquencies too. After three years they foreclose, automatic, but they may need to explain what they do in collections. I would think that Real Property and Environmental Management may have the most to say in that area. MS. O’HARA: And Environmental Management might have something to say on the contracts piece too. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. MS. O’HARA: Because I don’t think they have the same green light as DPW in construction contracts, yet they do construction. So, you might get some feedback from them on that as well. MR. ARMOUR: After we have our discussion today can our meeting committee email you our request which ones we want to come in as far as Finance? Two or three of them that Bill’s talking about. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. So whoever you want scheduled, let me know and I’ll have my secretary make the arrangement. MR. ARMOUR: A couple of the ones you suggested were ones that we emailed back and forth about. MR. TAKABA: What was that? MR. ARMOUR: The Tax Division, Sewer and Water. MR. TAKABA: Okay. That’s for sure? MR. ARMOUR: Yeah. MS. PROVALENKO: So, you think it will be Nancy? MR. TAKABA: Yeah. What I’ll do rather than trying to figure out who should come, if you tell me what you want discussed, then I’ll find people that are appropriate, unless there is somebody specific that you want. MS. O’HARA: Okay. Well delinquencies is kind of the flip side of revenue enhancement. 19 MR. TAKABA: Yeah but it’s cost. MS. O’HARA: Yeah, it is but we are looking at that too. MS. WONG: When the committees make a report, are we going to have three separate reports to send to the Mayor or are we going to have one report, and who will be writing the report? Will it come from us or do we send a draft and someone else compile it? MS. GARSON: You basically determine what is in the report. And actually at the last Cost of Government the wording was worked out at meetings. We’ll provide clerical support and if you want all of the suggestions in the back, we’ll compile it, but the actual drafting is done by the entire commission. MS. PROVALENKO: It’s actually at the meeting. MS. GARSON: You decide on the structure which you want it to look like. How you want things broken up then we compile it for you. MS. O’HARA: Just one more thing before we move on. On the delinquency issue, I just want to ask Bill what his knowledge is of fair share contributions. Is this system up to date, and do we have delinquencies there? MR. TAKABA: That needs a lot of work. There’s two sides of it.One is the legality has always been questioned. So there’s some hesitation, but it’s been used. The money that’s there, about four and a half million, the money that’s there has been used, but it’s divided by geographic areas and within the geographic areas you got Police, Fire and all these different services. So by the time you look at say what Parks has available in a particular district, it’s not enough to do a real big project. MS. O’HARA: Well is that because we haven’t been assessing enough or because we’re not receiving the assessments? MR. TAKABA: No, no. As far receiving it, we’ve been charging the developers. MS. O’HARA: So there aren’t a lot of delinquencies there currently? MR. TAKABA: No, no. It’s not. They don’t get their permits unless they pay up front. MS. GARSON: You’re saying that, back to sort of the big picture, when you deal with revenue enhancements you also want to talk about fair share. MR. TAKABA: Yeah. Then I can ask Planning Department. MS. GARSON: From Planning to discuss fair share. MS. O’HARA: Yeah. Cause I know we made a run at having an actual impact fee put into place and that didn’t fly. MR. TAKABA: Right. 20 MS. WONG: Are we done with any further comments on Item 6? MR. ARMOUR: I have one comment and it doesn’t concern our committee but we talked a lot about laser fische. Wouldn’t that be more under technology committee? I know that things overlap but it seems to be more technology.I don’t know how to address it, I’m just making a comment. MS. WONG: I think we’ll find that the committees will overlap in several things. I sort of looked at it as an operational thing. MS. GARSON: So that would be a situation we probably would bring in Data Systems and a user to talk about the system if that’s something that the commission wants to learn more about. MS. O’HARA: Yeah. For instance the delinquency that we discussed with Department of Environmental Management – landfill fees and sewer fees. It’s really into technology too. The technology that the interface that they have at the landfill, and being able to accurately assess and track all these accounts. So that’s a technology issue too. MR. TAKABA: You may even look at the revenue side where you got fees. A lot of departments collect fees. Is it appropriate if it’s compared statewide, is it too high, too low, just right? MS. WONG: We’ve just discussed who we’d like to have from the county, but we’ve talked in the past about inviting the public. And I know that they are invited, but is there a way that we could invite the public more of an outreach to participate whether by email or by mail? Any discussion on that? Do we want to more strongly encourage the public at this time? MR. TAKABA: If you look at the questions that were asked of the departments, like question three, specifically asks them to identify revenue and revenue collections in their departments that they’re applicable. Maybe the committee would want to look at that and if there’s any department that stands out or that makes a good suggestion that you might want to follow up on, we can invite those departments just to talk about fees. So maybe at your meeting after this, you’re going to meet after this? MR. ARMOUR: Yes. MR. TAKABA: You can talk about it. And I know you’re not going to be ready actually select the departments but you may want to discuss that. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE MEETING DATES MS. WONG: Moving on to Item 7, Discussion Regarding Future Meetings. Will nd everyone be here for the 22? Seems like everyone will be here hopefully. So November, two of the meetings are the days after holidays. Do we want to change that? One person is nodding yes so far. 21 thth MR. ARMOUR: For me the 12 is okay, the 26 I’d like that changed. MS. PROVALENKO: Me too. MS. O’HARA: Would it be advisable to shift both days up a week and then we’d still have two. MS. GARSON: Then just shift them to the Thursday because the Fridays are Furlough Fridays. You can move them up a week but move it to a different day other than Friday. th MS. WONG: So you’re saying the fourth and 18? th MS. GARSON: The fifth and the 19 are Furlough days. th MR. ARMOUR: The 18 doesn’t work for me. th MS. WONG: The 18 does not work for you? MR. ARMOUR: No. MS. O’HARA: Which one? MR. ARMOUR: Fourth. MS. O’HARA: The fourth one you can’t make? ndth MS. WONG: How about the 2 and 16? MS. O’HARA: That’s election. th MS. WONG: Is that a holiday too? Third and 17? K. ARMOUR: Yeah. th MR. TAKABA: The 16 is holiday? What holiday is that? MS. GARSON: No, the second. Okay, so we’re looking at November 3. th MS. WONG: Third and 17. How about December? MR. TAKABA: Okay, so it’s 11/3 and 11/17? Is that what it is? MS. WONG: 11/3 and 11/17. Same time, 10:00. December 10 and 24. Twenty-four is Christmas eve. There has been a request for a break. We’ll take a break for five minutes. BREAK: 11:25-11:30 MR. TAKABA LEFT AT 11:30. 22 MS. WONG: The meeting will reconvene. It’s 11:30. We were on Item 7, Discussion Regarding Future Meeting Date. December 10 and 24. MS. GARSON: Do you want to just not, we can just not have the second meeting and th you can discuss it later. You probably are going to be okay just for the 10 in December and not have two meetings that month. Just based on experience. December is hard. MS. O’HARA: Sounds good. th MS. WONG : Just the 10? MS. PROVALENKO: Yeah. thth MS. WONG: January is 14 and 28. It seems to be still good. MS. GARSON: How about we do this. We can have that as a standing agenda item, Future Meeting Dates. We will have that as a standard agenda item so at each meeting you can poll us and see if anyone has a problem. Because we already have had issues twice with not being able to get a quorum for our regular scheduled meeting because things come up. So, I know that Marilyn wanted this on the agenda because it was the holidays. So as long as we’ve taken care of the holiday season. January is not until the th 14 anyway so you kind of get through the holiday season and then you can revisit the issue. MR. ARMOUR: Just talking about January, I have a trip to the mainland and I think the th 14 I won’t be here, but I have to double check the dates. MS. GARSON: And that’s also the Friday before the holiday weekend. MS. WONG: So do you want to talk about that, January at this meeting? MS. O’HARA: Something to discuss at every meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA MS. WONG: Moving on to Item 8, Items to be Placed on Next Agenda. One is the calendar. MS. GARSON: So, I’ll have the discussion on the report that was presented today.I need a little bit of a clearer idea of who exactly, or what exactly you want on the next agenda. Bill and I were discussing that perhaps you would be okay with purchasing and contracts issue. So we would invite Nancy, Gilbert and an attorney from our office. And there’s also a contract specialist in Department of Public Works who we could invite. And again, depending on the interaction from the commission, that could take you awhile. And then if you want to just maybe we have just Burt Tsuchiya who is the head of Data Systems, come in and just talk about what his knowledge is of the Data System, give you that general idea. And then if you then want to invite the other people from the 23 other departments with independent systems, and we can make the decision at that time rather than have five people come in. Or you can just stick to the contracts, but I probably would suggest that you would stagger the meeting time because you are dealing with department heads that we would say 10:00 you would have the contract people come in. And if you wanted somebody else to come in, and you say that’s 11:00. MS. O’HARA: Yeah, definitely. One other thing I’d like to recommend, when we’re looking at contracts it’s one thing to get the input from Procurement and the attorneys. It’s another thing to hear from the departments and the issues they’re having with getting actions contracted, getting out their RFP, IFB, and the oversight that they’re providing once the contract is in place in terms of collecting documentation. So it would be nice to hear both sides. And we’ll only basically hear one by inviting Procurement, and we’ll understand the process. But we also need to understand what the issues are with that process. So, it may take more than one meeting to address this. MS. GARSON: Oh yeah. That’s fine. MS. WONG: So the next two meetings will be four groups. MS. GARSON: Please tell me so, the next meeting you want to discuss the contracting people? Procurement. And so we’ll invite the representative from the Department of Public Works too, who is the contract person. And in a way she’s a little bit on a user end too. MS. O’HARA: They have a different process. MS. GARSON: So Nancy Crawford, Gilbert Benevides who is the head of the Purchasing Division, and an attorney from our office to talk about contracting procedures. MS. O’HARA: All on the same topic? MS. GARSON: Yes. And if you want somebody else on a different topic you let me know. MS. O’HARA: So, can we then identify as a commission what it is we need to know so they can have better direction on preparing. MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. WONG: I’m sorry? MS. GARSON: What you do you want them to speak about. MS. O’HARA: Yeah. What we need to know from these folks that we’re inviting so they can develop a presentation. MS. WONG: The process of procurement, isn’t it? 24 MS. O’HARA: We want to understand the process? Do we need to know what services are contracted, outside contracts? The types of services? MS. WONG: You want specific kinds of contracts? MS. O’HARA: There’s all kinds of contracts. There’s construction contracts and service contracts, and how much of the work that the county has done through outside contractors. It’s some knowledge that we need to understand in terms of the Cost of Government. A lot of services are done by outside contractors.So in terms of the volume, dollar amount, those kinds of things. What the process is for a multi-year contract. What the process is for professional services. These are all different processes under Procurement so it’s good if the commission has a general understanding of how that all works. MR. MATSUDA: Kathy, based on this, what would you say on the, you requested of the individual who got this procurement process. Like okay, we just need you to appear at the commission meeting and to discuss these items. You have to tell the person what it’s going to be about. MS. GARSON: Right. If you were asking for an attorney from my office to be here, I would say, present an overview of the procurement law and the various different things. Make it 15 minutes just so that everybody has an understanding of what we do. We can also describe what our office does in reviewing contracts.I do think that Ms. O’Hara’s suggestions the kind of services that are contracted out it’s going to be something that’s important to you that would have to be something that Purchasing Division can come up with. MS. O’HARA: Another question is how are addendums to contracts handled? Are they handled by the department or are they handled by Finance, the Purchasing Division? Who initiates those actions? These are some MS. GARSON: Amendments to contracts? MS. O’HARA: A contract is let and it will state that it can be extended. And so those contract extensions are generally called addendums. And what happens some times is they fall into the void. Nobody is really dealing with it in terms of those extensions. Is it the departments responsibility to initiate? Is it Procurement’s responsibility? I know from my perspective as representing a company that does contracts with the county, those things don’t always fall out in a reasonable manner. Again it’s a policy issue as Bill brought up about how these things are handled. I think if we go and get this information first, what the process is, and then consult with some of the departments on their experience and their issues with contracts, we’ll begin to see what isn’t working well. MS. GARSON: I would say then, generally that’s contract administration for various different types of contracts that we would like information on. 25 MS. O’HARA: Right. And we would like to know their explanation of who is responsible for that and to help contracting. So knowing the types of services and how it’s administered. MS. WONG: Then it might be helpful for people that are asked to come to the commission that we have three different subcommittees so that they would be alerted to what kind of topics each committee would be addressing. MS. O’HARA: So getting back to what you said originally, Kathy, was whether we should do this and Data at the next meeting? That sounds like a lot to. MS. GARSON: Too much? MS. O’HARA: Yeah. MS. GARSON: Okay. So the agenda item will probably be something like,Discussion and question and answer session with Purchasing Division, Public Works and Corporation Counsel regarding current processing of contracts and contract administration. MS. O’HARA: Okay. MS. GARSON: And that’s broad enough to maybe ask, have you ask question of them. MS. WONG: So there will be four people and say 15 minutes presentation by each? MS. O’HARA: At max. MS. GARSON: Or the representative from Public Works might not necessarily have a presentation but is there to answer questions. MS. WONG: So can you make sure or stay for our questions and answers after your presentation? MS. GARSON: Sure. MS. O’HARA: Can we also ask them, because the contracting process can be very complex, if it can be put into a flow chart, like handout, that we could follow along with because it can get very complex. There’s a lot of issues with the law. MS. GARSON: I can ask them. I can tell you right now, what we have is contract routing form. That has how it’s routed. What we can do is we can bring you things that are already in existence but I’m thinking that two weeks, the next meeting is October 22, in order to get your packets out we got one week. But that might be something if they can’t verbally explain it to you while they’re here, we can ask them. MS. O’HARA: They might already have these things to go. Anything that they do have developed in the way of the graphic of the flow of contracts and how it works would be very helpful. 26 MS. GARSON: And there is a state procurement office website that also has links to various trainings and they have flow charts for how that process works. So, I’ll either bring them to you or make sure that it’s done by the attorney who is presenting it. MS. O’HARA: That would be very helpful. MS. GARSON: I think probably a short presentation and then just having them here to respond to questions will probably be a good idea. MS. O’HARA: So, do we want to give them a time on the agenda like 10:45 so that we can complete our other business? Or how shall we do it? MS. GARSON: That’s up to you. MS. WONG: Any specific time? We’re starting at 10. 10:30? MS. GARSON: The other thing is you have flexibility with your agenda to move things. It can be 10, and we can put it first, as long as you have Statements from the Public prior to that, you’re okay. MS. WONG: So, for an hour? Hour and a half? That doesn’t give us much time to make a presentation if there’s four. MR. ARMOUR: Maybe hour and a half, and if they finish it up sooner than that’s fine. MS. GARSON: But I can just have them all here. They all work together. So they can play off each other too, if one cannot answer your question the other can. So a short presentation, each do no more than 15 minutes and stick around for everybody to ask questions. MS. WONG: And in the event Nancy cannot come, do we want to wait until she can come or just accept the replacement? MS. GARSON: I think you accept the replacement. And the other thing is ifthey know someone who might have information that they want you to hear, they may bring that person. MS. WONG: Anything else to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting? MS. PROVALENKO: I think it’s a full agenda. MS. O’HARA: In terms of the correspondence, if we can get an update of the logs that we talked about. We’ll probably have more correspondence coming in. MS. WONG: An update from all the reports from the subcommittees at the next meeting or not yet because we’ll be hearing from them. MS. GARSON: I’ll leave that on, Reports from the Subcommittees as a standing thing. 27 MS. O’HARA: Aren’t we going to have discussion on the report that was made today? MS. GARSON: Yes. MS. O’HARA: So that’s a separate agenda item? MS. GARSON: Yes, it will be a separate agenda item. MS. WONG: Anything else for the next meeting? ANNOUNCEMENTS MS. WONG: If not, the next meeting of the Cost of Government Commission will be held on October 22, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., at the Liquor Conference Room, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, HI 96720. ADJOURNMENT MS. WONG: Is there a motion to adjourn? MR. MATSUDA: Before we adjourn. MS. WONG: Discussion. MR. MATSUDA: Do we have, just verbally, who submitted their questionnaire? MS. CARVALHO: You mean from the departments? MR. MATSUDA: Yes. MS. CARVALHO: Well we don’t have an up to date listing yet because Sandy got some that is not on here, but right now we have, you want who submitted or who hasn’t? MR. MATSUDA: Who submitted. MS. CARVALHO: Civil Defense, Corporation Counsel, County Clerk, Data Systems, Environmental Management, Finance, Housing, Human Resources, Liquor, Mayor, Parks, Police, Prosecutors, Research and Development and Water. And there’s more who have submitted but Sandy has to update it. MS. O’HARA: Are there any departments that we haven’t heard from? MS. CARVALHO: That we have not? MS. O’HARA: Yes. MS. CARVALHO: Yes. 28 MS. CARVALHO: Yes. We are missing Aging, Fire, Mass Transit, Planning and Public Works. But some of them have submitted, but I’m just not sure. MS. O’HARA: Is the Legislative Auditor’s Office? MS. GARSON: I’m not sure that we’ve sent her a letter. However, you could ask or I would recommend though is that I will send you a link. I believe the audits are online and that you can look at her audit. I guess she would not be comfortable as a Legislative Auditor making suggestions based upon her job. Probably be good for you to look at the audit. I can send you those things. MS. WONG: Any other discussion? Is there a motion to adjourn? MOTION:MR. MATSUDA: So moved. MR. ARMOUR: Second. MS. WONG: Meeting is adjourned. Meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Submitted by: Sandra Arriola 29