Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-02 Cost of Government Commission MinutesCOST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MINUTES March 2, 2006 —10:00 a.m. County Council Room 25 Aupuni Street, Room 201 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commission members Pamela F. Cushnie, Commissioner present: Wayne T. Joseph, Commissioner Myles Y. Miyasato, Commissioner Melvin K. Sakaguchi, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Others present: Katherine A. Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Crosson, Secretary Mayor Harry Kim Michael J. Udovic, Deputy Corporation Counsel Deanna Sako, Controller, Finance Department 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Cushnie called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS Ms. Garson suggested the commissioners introduce themselves, since this is the second item on the agenda. Ms. Cushnie said she is a retired teacher and still works for the University here. She mentioned she read the binder provided to the Commission members and felt it offered excellent suggestions. Mr. Joseph said he is a teacher at Waiakea High School and is involved in cross - country and other sports and running activities. He is also currently a member of the County's Board of Ethics. Ms. Stremski said she is now retired, but her last job was as an insurance clerk for the Hilo Medical Center, and she was also involved years ago in union activities. She is now taking it easy at home and enjoying her husband's company. Mr. Sakaguchi said he is a retired university administrator. He is also currently working as an unpaid consultant to a Vietnamese university. Mr. Miyasato said he is the island representative with the Operating Engineers' Union, and he said he basically oversees the industry. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no members of the public present. However, Mayor Kim was present and asked to address the Commission. Mayor Kim stated the following: He wanted the Commission to believe and understand why he was here. He works every single day with the goal of gaining peoples' trust. There will be no interference when it comes to the Commission doing its job. The only interference to come would be from him should he learn the Commission was doing something illegal. He doesn't approve of many things the government is projecting to the world. He knows that everything a person does will lead to either trust or distrust. The Board's assignment, as per the Charter, is an impossible mission. To do the job thoroughly would require years of work. If he could change the Charter, he would change it to instruct the Commission to identify the high priority departments it would like to spend the 11 months evaluating. The Commission should start with the concept that it is not going to be able to finish evaluating all the County's departments. He would prefer the Commission start with the large departments that were not addressed in the last report. He would like the Commission to address those departments that are in the public eye. The Commission is a neutral party and no matter what he says, people will look at the Commission as part of the government. He receives a -mails from people who insult him and criticize County workers, and the reason he gets these is because of the basic mistrust people have. The Mayor requested that the Commission particularly look at three departments which were not addressed in the last report: 1. the Solid Waste Division of the Environmental Management Department — the amount and type of information going out to the public has most people confused about what the truth is. People also don't know what they're supposed to do by law. 2. the Police Department. 3. the Department of Public Works. If he could change the Charter, he would do so to identify these three departments as priorities. However, the Commission's attorney may tell them otherwise. He knows the Commission will be meeting a couple of times a month, and he recognizes the difficulty of what they're being asked to do. He wishes the commissioners were being paid for their time. He would be very happy if the Commission prioritized certain departments and evaluated only those departments, but he knows counsel may 2 advise them otherwise. He would rather have one department scrutinized thoroughly than just hitting the surface of each department. The Mayor thanked the commissioners for volunteering their time and promised that every single department would be told to provide them with all the information needed to do their job. There will be no barriers. Ms. Cushnie said she had some questions for the Mayor, since he had opened the door on the Commission's task. Ms. Cushnie said the last report she had from the COGC was dated February, 2003, which would mean the work was done primarily in 2002. She asked if there was a Commission in 2003 or 2004, and the Mayor answered no. Ms. Cushnie asked why. Ms. Garson explained that per the Charter, the Commission convenes in the first year after the term and that this Commission is to do the report for the second term. Ms. Cushnie said that the 2003 report had many recommendations and asked the Mayor if he felt they were worthy of his consideration and implementation. The Mayor indicated that some reports from departments had been collected and should be read by the commissions. Then if they had questions he would respond to them. Ms. Cushme asked the Mayor what he felt about the status of objectivity and trust of the COGC, since it served at his pleasure but was also responsible to the public and the Council. The Mayor explained that the commissioners were to work at the pleasure of the Charter and were to do their job like any commission. Their obligation was to do their job. He said he doesn't mean to sound arrogant, but he has absolute and total confidence in regards to what the County is doing and that everyone does the best they can. He knows things will be scrutinized and he expects disagreements on procedures and priorities, but that is normal. The Mayor said there is one guidance he tells people who recommend others for boards and commissions: That they nominate people who will represent the County, who have good reputations as to fairness and are aware and involved in events. Ms. Cushnie asked if there is a broader picture to be looked at than just individual departments— whether there is a cost to the government from outside forces, involving things such as environmental issues and the waste and litter problems. The Mayor responded: As an example, when the Commission looks at the Environmental Management Division, he believes it is the County's responsibility to limit what goes into the landfill, for the protection of the environment and to minimize waste —to minimize the waste of resources. He believes that can be accomplished by identifying two goals: No. I is to recycle as best as people can, and No. 2 is that what cannot be recycled should be made into the most productive use that it can. If the Commission looks at those objectives and looks at what the County does, and it is counter productive to those goals, then he expects the Commission to point that out to him. The County now has extra monies. The County did not expect this kind of inflation, although it did expect some inflation. The 3 County tries to make government be responsible to what it is all about. Should there be a cap in what the County spends every year? And what happens with the money —how should the County treat it if there are revenue projections beyond this cap? He does not want the County to be in a predicament like the other counties. He takes very seriously what he promises and will do everything to gain the Commission's trust. If the Commission finds out something that is contradictory to what he has promised the public, he wants to know about it. Mr. Sakaguchi said he will be worried if the Commission starts to look at social problems, as he feels it is the responsibility of the elected officials and the Council members to deal with issues such as the proposals on handling waste. He believes the Commission's focus should be on existing operations, not on future operations. He is interested in hearing everyone's perspective, as their task is very big and if they should not have to worry about the problems that may come up in the future. The Mayor's response: He doesn't mean to be disagreeable, but he believes they are one and the same. If the objectives of a department are spelled out, and the Commission finds out that the department is spending money in areas that don't meet its objectives, he wants to know about it. That is the Commission's task. If the commissioners discover things that are contradictory to the law or are not prudent, he needs to know. That is what the Commission is for. As a scenario, if they should feel that a department is not going through the proper procedures in hiring consultants or contractors, they need to report that. If the County has been prudent in picking the best consultants, they also need to report that. Mr. Sakaguchi voiced concern that the Commission stick to being a review body and not become another decision - making body. The Mayor has the responsibility of making decisions, but if the Commission can help him make better decisions, that is the goal. He said he appreciates the Mayor's vision on trust but said that there is a problem with department heads. He disagrees with focusing primarily on the bigger departments and stated his hope that they will look at different issues such as privatization or other philosophical approaches to government. Mr. Joseph said he had no questions, thanked the Mayor for appointing him, and said he hoped they would have a worthwhile report. In closing, the Mayor stated that he just wants to make sure the County is spending its money wisely, fairly, and prudently, and he needs the Commission's help to do that. The Mayor left for the Commission six recent updates in response to Dixie Kaetsu's memo to departments about what has been done to comply with the prior Commission's recommendations. Reports were received from the Office of Aging, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Office of the County Clerk, the Finance Department, the Fire Department, the Office of Housing and Community Development, and the Mass Transit Agency. Also included was a letter dated March 17, 2003, from the Department of Parks and Recreation to the prior Commission. 53 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Ms. Garson suggested moving past this item, since there was no addendum, and the Commission did not have enough people to vote on one if there was something to add. 5. PRESENTATION ON SUNSHINE LAW, PROTOCOL Ms. Garson suggested moving this item to later and proceeding to Items 6 and 7 on the agenda, as two County employees were present to discuss Items 6 and 7 and could then leave. She suggested someone move to hear item No. 5 later. Ms. Stremski so moved and Ms. Cushnie seconded. The meeting moved to agenda item No. 6 6. PRESENTATION REGARDING COUNTY REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CIVIL SERVICE LAWS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Ms. Garson introduced Michael Udovic, an attorney with the Office of the Corporation Counsel. Mr. Udovic stated the following: His primary responsibility is with dealing with labor issues as they arise in the County. He works with the Civil Service Department on labor issues that arise, such as grievances, wage and hour issues, equal employment opportunity matters, and ADA issues. The director of the Civil Service Department is Michael Ben, who is very knowledgeable in labor relations and civil service and merit laws. The deputy director is Ronald Takahashi, who was recently appointed when Rodney Kaido retired. The Department has several divisions: Employee Relations deals with internal employee issues such as coordinating benefit plans, retirement and health benefits, and deferred compensation. Benefits are important because all governmental agencies are finding it difficult to recruit new employees and that many positions are unfilled. Another area deals with classification of pay and determining what job responsibilities are for various employees in relation to pay structures and the workforce and whether jobs should be downgraded or upgraded to ensure fairness. The Health and Safety Division deals with safety issues such as driver safety, on which they made a recent educational video. That Division also deals with equipment issues and the training of operators, as well as with Workers' Compensation benefits and payments. There is also a Labor Relations Division, which deals with union and labor negotiations. It handles grievances as well. The Personnel and Organization Development Division deals with training issues for County employees and making sure people are capable of doing the tasks to which they are assigned. There is a Recruitment and Examination Division, which is in charge of soliciting new employees, setting up examinations and making sure the merit principles of civil servants are complied with. There is also an Anti - Discrimination and Harassment Policy, as well as an ADA coordinator. The anti - discrimination and harassment laws deal with areas of great concern. There are state and federal laws that make it difficult to do things that are in contravention to the law. People can make 5 recommendations or suggestions, but the County can effect any changes without going through the State Legislature. There are over 2300 County employees. Most of them are in unions and governed by union bargaining agreements. The unions include Hawai `i Fire Fighters, SHOPO, the UPW, and HGEA. Salaries and wages are specifically spelled out in the collective bargaining agreements, so the County has little control over this once passed by law. There are a few exempt positions, such as attorneys, but they still benefit from civil service laws and merit issues. The Department also has a Merit Appeals Board, which hears complaints by those not presented by a union. Most labor issues are governed by law and beyond the County's control, and changing the laws would be difficult. Mr. Sakaguchi commented that the collective bargaining laws were established 50 to 60 years ago when conditions were quite different and that things have changed a lot since then. Mr. Udovic told Mr. Sakaguchi that he is welcome to examine this, as the Mayor didn't give him any restraints, but to be aware that there may be other issues to deal with. The collective bargaining laws, though old, were updated when they were rewritten five to six years ago. However, there may be some matters that should be examined in negotiating union contracts. Ms. Cushnie asked about the many job openings the County has and whether difficult or unsatisfactory employees are part of the problem. Mr. Udovic said that most employees are very dedicated and hard - working. However, many people could get higher pay in the private sector. He stated that it is also difficult to find people with the required skills for some jobs, as the Big Island does not have a large labor force to choose from. He said that Gabriella Cabanas of the Civil Service Department is the expert on this. Ms. Garson suggested the commissioners make notes on areas they want to explore. Mr. Joseph questioned whether the Corporation Counsel represents all County employees or just those in management, and Mr. Udovic said that it depends on circumstances. He explained how the Office of the Corporation Counsel investigates whether management employee acted in the course of the job and if so, the Corporation Counsel will provide representation. If feel employee was up- and -up, representation will be provided. Investigation may have revealed no ethical violations on behalf of management. Mr. Sakaguchi questioned why the County spends money and resources adjudicating problems, complaints, or grievances, because if a grievant is not satisfied, he or she will take it to court. He questioned why the County spends money trying to resolve a grievance at the local level, when if it is a contentious situation, it will end up going to court. Mr. Udovic replied that the Corporation Counsel's position is to represent the County if there is a complaint levied against it. A complaint could be made by an employee, in which case an investigation is conducted to determine whether or not the complaint has merit. He said that although the Corporation Counsel litigates those cases, they do not occur very often. He said the largest part of his job is representing the County in union grievances in which employees are complaining about action taken against them by the employer. Ms. Garson explained that the Corporation Counsel sometimes represents employees if there is an ethical violation against them. The surrounding allegations are looked at, and depending on the nature of the claim, it is determined whether representation will be provided. If a police officer during the course of his employment has a complaint levied against him/her, the Corporation Counsel will represent him. Mr. Joseph asked why the Corporation Counsel represented management in a Board of Ethics case, but did not represent the employee lodging the complaint. Mr. Udovic said it was possible in that case that the investigation into the allegations revealed, from the Corporation Counsel's standpoint, that there were no ethical violations on behalf of management. In such a case, the Corporation Counsel is obligated to represent the management employee and not the proponent of the proposition of ethical violation. Mr. Sakaguchi asked if he would have to pay for a lawyer out of his own pocket if he were a whistle blower and exempt from a union. Mr. Udovic said that is possible but that it depends on the circumstances, as whistle blowers get special treatment and could get paid. 7. PRESENTATION REGARDING COMMISSION FINANCES AND GENERAL OVERVIEW OF COUNTY FINANCES Ms. Garson introduced Deanna Sako, the Controller for the County of Hawaii, who she had invited to give the commissioners a general overview of the County's finances. (The meeting took a break from 10:55 a.m., as a quorum was lost when Mr. Sakaguchi took a cell phone call. The meeting resumed at 11:02 a.m.) Ms. Sako provided a one -page handout guideline for boards and commission members regarding reimbursement for mileage and other travel expenses. She also provided the members with the County's "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" for the fiscal year from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, and stated that the 2005 report would be provided soon. She directed the commissioners to page 52 of the report, where there was a brief overview of the County's annual budget process. Ms. Sako said the following: Each department starts preparing its budget in September and is to include increases in items such as gasoline and salaries. The budgets are submitted to the Budget Division of the Finance Department, where they are reviewed. The Mayor has final say over the budgets. The budgets are submitted by the Mayor to the County Council each March. The budgets are still in a preliminary format, awaiting certification of real property tax values. This gives the Council members time to review all the budgets and to ask any questions they may have. The final budget then gets prepared on what is hoped is 7 accurate information and goes through the Council process of two readings. It needs to be enacted by July 1, when the new fiscal year starts. Gary Takemura is the head of the Budget Division. The Finance Department is also responsible for paying all the County's bills. All the money flows in and out through the Treasury Division. A computer system called FRESH was recently installed, which is supposed to make things more efficient. Each department enters its own information into this system. Ms. Sako mentioned the following miscellaneous things: - Any change in a budget would need to have to be taken up with the County Council. - Let Ms. Garson know if we need copies of anything, and she will provide them. - The departments also submit current goals and objectives for each year - The Finance Department needs to make sure that any contracts that come through comply with the County Code and the laws of the Hawai `i Revised Statutes. - Payroll is a big payment. The system is set up to comply with the various bargaining unit contracts. - Each month a budget status report is prepared, so the Finance Department can be aware of how each Department is doing with the budget. - There is a general fund and a special revenue fund. - There are also some funds held on behalf of other agencies, such as the motor vehicle tax money, which gets transferred to the State. - There are two proprietary funds. - The Treasury Division is in charge of investing the County's funds. - Up to 60% of the County's funds can be in one institution. The County only recently was allowed to also use mainland institutions. Ms. Cushnie asked Ms. Sako what her department's computer system was. Ms. Sako said they recently received computers with Windows, to replace the Wangs which they used for 20 years. They are still fine- tuning the system. Ms. Cushme asked if the Mayor releases all the required budgeted funds, and Ms. Sako answered that no funds are withheld but that if it is a capital improvement budget, it's a little different. 0 Ms. Cushnie questioned what committee determines if a floating bond is prudent for the County, and Ms. Sako said that the Mayor makes that determination, but it needs Council approval. Ms. Cushme asked if Ms. Sako's department had ever considered a two -year budget, and Ms. Sako said she would have to check with Mr. Takemura on that. Ms. Cushme asked if there was any land not designated for public use that is still owned by the County. Ms. Sako answered affirmatively and said there is a land management committee that handles this. However, they do have the option of selling County lands. Upon Ms. Cushnie's question, she also stated that that is a viable source of income for the County. Mr. Sakaguchi asked if there is a list of these County lands, and Ms. Sako said there is and that the Commission could be provided with it. Ms. Cushnie asked about whether the County receives property as payment in lieu of taxes, and Ms. Sako explained the County's foreclosure process on property owners who are delinquent in paying their real property tax and how the land gets sold at auction and the proceeds are used to pay off the taxes as well as any liens on the property. It is not really a profit - making enterprise for the County, as it is meant to collect back taxes. Ms. Cushnie asked if Ms. Sako's department's budget report identifies any special funds, and whether they are co- mingled with matching funds. Ms. Sako said they have hundreds of grants that they monitor and maintain. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether the County loses positions that are vacant, and Ms. Sako replied that it could happen but that normally the funding would not be lost. Mr. Sakaguchi said he noticed in their financial report that there is no catastrophe fund, and Ms. Sako explained that there are several funds that are basically for this purpose. Ms. Sako said that at the time of the last Commission's report, the County was in difficult financial times. However, due to the inflation of property values, the County is trying to catch up on things. It is also being proposed that money be set aside for a "rainy day" fund which could be used to stabilize revenues later. Mr. Sakaguchi asked Ms. Sako if there is a policy for or against equipment leasing. Ms. Sako explained there is a combination of each, depending on the cost and what is available. Some of the equipment in Solid Waste is leased. She is not aware of any leased cars at this point, although they are checking that option out for the Police Department. Ms. Garson stated that the Board needed to elect a Chair for the Commission, at least for the purpose of this first meeting in order to run through the agenda. She had anticipated that Dixie Kaetsu would be present to do so but was unable to attend. Ms. Stremski moved to elect a chair. Ms. Cushme seconded the motion. 0 Mr. Sakaguchi nominated Ms. Stremski for chair, but she declined the nomination. Ms. Stremski then nominated Ms. Cushnie, who said she would accept only temporarily, to facilitate this meeting only. Mr. Miyasato moved that the nomination be closed. Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion. Mr. Sakaguchi asked Ms. Cushnie if she really wanted to be chair, as it meant she would have to be silent or neutral. Ms. Cushnie said she was willing to be chair just for this meeting. Ms. Garson asked who was in favor of Ms. Cushnie as temporary chair, and all members voted aye. Ms. Garson told Ms. Cushnie that we were at item No. 5 on the agenda, regarding the Sunshine Law. Mr. Sakaguchi asked if all the items except No. 5 could be deferred to the next meeting. Mr. Joseph said he would not be in favor of doing so and wanted to get as much business done today as possible. Mr. Sakaguchi said that Mr. Joseph was getting paid and that he was not. Ms. Cushnie asked for further discussion regarding the proposal to defer the rest of the agenda to the next meeting. Mr. Joseph said that he did not hear a second to the motion. Mr. Sakaguchi said that he was just asking. 5. PRESENTATION ON SUNSHINE LAW, PROTOCOL Ms. Garson explained that the purpose of the Sunshine Law is to give people a chance to attend meetings. The law requires the posting of an agenda six calendar days prior to the next meeting. The agenda items must be particularized enough that people can understand what is to be discussed. The only way an agenda can be amended is via a two - thirds vote of the members. Also, even if there is a two - thirds vote to add something to an agenda, it is not allowed if the item to be discussed is of importance to the general public. Agendas must also specify where a meeting is to take place and, if videoconferencing is available, where all the videoconferencing areas are. Ms. Garson also mentioned that in a videoconference, if the communication is cut off at any point in the meeting, the meeting must be ended, even if there is a quorum at one site. There may be some legislation being drafted to change this. All discussions and deliberations about board business between members need to occur at a meeting. Members are not allowed to call each other to discuss any agenda issue, nor are they allowed to communicate via e -mail. Ms. Stremski asked if the commissioners are allowed to speak to their constituents, if they were questioned. Ms. Garson said there is no problem with that. The Sunshine Law is really meant to prevent backroom dealings by commissioners. 10 Two members, and only two, are allowed to talk to each other about board business, as long as no commitment is made to vote a certain way. However, it is safer to stay away from any discussion with a board member on board business, because it is very easy for the discussion to be spoken of to a third member, and then it becomes serial communication. Mr. Sakaguchi asked what the penalty is for violating the Sunshine Law. Ms. Garson said that any action taken at a meeting that violated the law would be in invalid. Mr. Joseph stated that there was an impeachment proceeding ongoing regarding County Council people who violated the Sunshine Law. Ms. Garson said she was only aware of an impeachment proceeding regarding Council members voting on the marijuana eradication law. Ms. Garson explained that subcommittees can be formed, where two ore more members (but less than a quorum) can get together to investigate or negotiate an issue. However, a subcommittee needs to be created at a meeting in which its creation is an agenda item. Also, a subcommittee's parameters of authority need to be clearly defined. Its findings would need to be reported at a second meeting; and if any action is to be taken based on the subcommittee's report, it would need to take place at a duly noticed third meeting. Ms. Garson explained the circumstances in which a committee can go into executive session, which is closed to the public. The circumstances to enter into executive session are very limited. The main reason a board may want to go into executive session is to consult with its attorney, which becomes attorney - client privilege. Certain personnel matters also would be discussed in executive session. If it is anticipated that something needs to be discussed in executive session, it needs to so indicate on the agenda. Ms. Garson explained that members of the public are invited to submit oral or written testimony on issues and that if any of the commissioners receive such communication, they should forward it to the Board's secretary for assignment of a communication number, distribution to commissioners, and placement on the next agenda. Another requirement is that minutes of each meeting be kept. The secretary is to provide the minutes within 30 days of a meeting. Ms. Garson said that each commissioner was earlier given a booklet on the Sunshine Law and said that if any commissioner has a question on what can or cannot be done, to call her office, her cell phone, or e -mail her. She explained there is no restriction on their communicating with her. She said they could also contact the Office of Information Practices directly with any questions, if they preferred. Ms. Garson explained that this meeting, because it is their first, is a little different from how meetings usually will go and that her purpose is really only to answer any legal questions they may have. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether a commission member could send written testimony or vote on an issue if he /she was not able to be present at a meeting but knew what was on the agenda. Ms. Garson said the member could not vote at a meeting in which he /she was not 11 present, but that he /she could submit input or suggestions via "testimony," like a member of the public. Mr. Sakaguchi said he was worried about those commissioners who were not able to attend meetings because of their work schedule, and that some people had an easier time getting off of work than others. Ms. Garson said the Commission was already losing two members because of geographic distance and work schedule problems. Mr. Joseph said that is why he feels it is important to do as much business as possible when a quorum exists. Ms. Cushnie asked if there were any further questions or discussions regarding the Sunshine Law. Ms. Stremski questioned how many members need to be present for a quorum, and Ms. Garson clarified that at least five members are needed. If only four members show up, the meeting has to be cancelled and all the agenda items pushed to the next agenda. Ms. Garson said that the first Cost of Government Commission established the rules for the Commission to meet on the first and third Thursday of each month and that this present Commission is following those rules. Members can propose revisions to those rules, but those proposals would need to be placed on an agenda and go through discussion and voting and adopting. Mr. Joseph pointed out that they can change the date of their next meeting, as long as the new date gets posted on the agenda and duly noticed. Ms. Garson said they also have the ability to call a special meeting which would not be on a regular meeting date. If a commissioner cannot attend a meeting, he /she is to let the secretary know. She is also to call each member a few days prior to a meeting to remind them and get a head count. Mr. Sakaguchi questioned why commissioners Ferrantino and Ombac couldn't make the meeting and whether they had suggestions on when they could attend meetings. Ms. Garson explained that Commissioner Ombac just started a new job and did not feel comfortable requesting time off from work. His day off is Monday each week and he wanted to ask if the meetings could be moved to Mondays. Ms. Ferrantino indicated that because she is a CPA, she is currently very busy due to the tax season. Videoconferencing may help her, but she only would be free on Fridays, which is a day on which several other boards and commissions meet, thus reducing conference room availability. Ms. Ferrantino also expressed that she will be gone from June 30 to August 1, 2006, on vacation, and so had pockets of time in which she would not be available. Ms. Garson said that Mr. Ombac had also mentioned that he would be willing to meet in the evenings, which is when he originally thought the meetings were scheduled. Mr. Sakaguchi asked if the Commission could meet in the evenings, and Ms. Garson said they could do whatever they wanted but cautioned them that evening meetings would limit the availability of County personnel who may be entitled to overtime pay for evening meetings. Ms. Cushnie said she wanted to poll the Commission members on their feelings about whether they should meet at a variety of places and times and what personnel would need to be drawn in, and whether a lot of public input was expected. 12 Mr. Sakaguchi said he hated Hilo being the center but that the Commissioners were mostly from in or near Hilo. Ms. Stremski said she is retired and has no problem driving to meetings in other areas, but that she would go along with whatever the others wanted. Mr. Sakaguchi suggested putting this discussion on the next agenda so that at least one other member, Ms. Nicholson, would be present. Ms. Garson said this should be discussed under item 10 on the agenda, regarding proposed rule revisions. Mr. Sakaguchi said he agreed with Mr. Joseph's suggestion that a meeting date or time could be changed without changing the regulation. Mr. Miyasato asked Ms. Garson if she was the counsel for the previous Commission. Ms. Garson said she was not but that she did cover a few of the meetings. He said he wanted an idea of whether there was much public input, and Ms. Garson said there was very little. She said the prior Commission's main problem was getting a quorum. Mr. Miyasato said he feels having a quorum is more important at this point than public input and that accommodating board members in order to reach a quorum should be more important. He pointed out how Council meetings are held during the day and people manage to give their input if they so desire. The Board continued to discuss different days of the week and meeting times to try to come to a resolution. An issue also was whether a conference room would be available. It was also discussed that counsel needed to get a commitment from Mr. Ombac about whether he would stay on the Commission if they held meetings periodically on Mondays. Ms. Cushnie suggested that because at this point they have a solid core of five members, they try to maintain the 1St and 3rd Thursdays of every month as the meeting date, so that they can plan ahead, with exceptions being made to meet on an occasional Monday. She asked if anyone present was averse to meeting on Thursdays as they are now. No one was. Ms. Garson had the commission clarify that essentially it would keep the meeting schedule for the 1" and 3rd Thursdays. However, she was to see if Mr. Ombac would stay on as a member if an occasional Monday meeting were scheduled, with the hope that he eventually would be able to come on Thursdays. Ms. Cushnie said she would like to put the onus back on the Commission members not present to let them know the Commission would be as consistent as possible with Thursdays in Hilo, so they could change their schedule to accommodate the Commission, which would be easier than changing the Commission's schedule. Ms. Stremski asked if there was any hope of someone being appointed to the Commission from the 81h District, and Ms. Garson said there is still hope but she is not aware of anyone in the process of being confirmed. Ms. Garson is to put on the next agenda for discussion the meeting time. If it is decided that a meeting will be changed from a Thursday to a Monday, it needs to be announced at the prior meeting. Mr. Sakaguchi said he agreed with Mr. Miyasato that having a quorum was the first priority, and then next was finding another mechanism to get public input. So the Commission decided to also have a meeting on Monday, April 3, 2006. Ms. Cushnie suggested moving on to the next item in the agenda. 13 8. PRESENTATION REGARDING DUTIES OF COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION AND APPROACH TAKEN BY PREVIOUS COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION. Ms. Garson explained that Ms. Kaetsu was not able to present this item as scheduled but that she had checked with the Mayor during the break and what he spoke of at the beginning of the meeting was really this item. However, she passed out to the commissioners the reports Ms. Kaetsu had collected from several departments on the status of the recommendations made by the last Commission's report. These reports were to give an update on the implementation of those suggestions. (12:15 p. m.: At Mr. Miyasato's request, the Board took a recess. Ms. Cushnie reconvened the meeting at 12:24 p.m.) Ms. Garson continued by explaining that the Commission's primary task was stated in Chapter 2 of the Charter, which is part of the binder she had made for the commissioners. She said that some of the boards and commissions are created in the County Code and asked if anyone had any questions about what the Cost of Government Commission is supposed to do. Mr. Miyasato asked if the 11 -month term started in January. Ms. Garson said she is trying to use the latest date she could find, which was the date of their swearing in, so their term would end in January, 2007. Ms. Cushnie asked if Ms. Garson could look for any draft notes from the unpublished departments. Ms. Garson said she did look for them already but will check again if they're available. Mr. Sakaguchi reminded Ms. Garson to also look for a list of County -owned lands. Ms. Garson wanted clarification on the list— whether it was a list of the land that was not being put to use. Mr. Sakaguchi said he would like to see the whole list, so he could follow up on Ms. Cushnie's suggestion of selling land the County doesn't need. Ms. Garson said she could ask whoever is in charge of keeping track of that land to come to a meeting and speak, because the list may be very cumbersome and may include lands that we can't do anything with, such as those with easements or transferred via an executive order from the State. Also, the Department of Water Supply has its own lands. Mr. Sakaguchi said the list could exclude those lands. He just wants to see what lands we own aren't being used and could possibly be made available to the public for something like housing. Ms. Cushnie said it would be good to note lands which might become an encumbrance or liability for the County. 9. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Cushnie asked if the Commission wanted to address this item at this time. Mr. Sakaguchi moved for a deferral of this item in order to give Ms. Nicholson a chance to participate. Mr. Miyasato seconded the motion. Mr. Joseph asked Mr. Sakaguchi his reasoning on this, and Mr. Sakaguchi said he wanted to give a person who was off - island the opportunity to vote. Mr. Joseph asked Ms. Stremski if she'd be present at the next meeting, and she said yes. She asked Mr. Sakaguchi if he'd be present at the next meeting, and he said yes, he planned to attend. 14 Mr. Joseph said he would rather take care of this item today and have the election. He does not want the Commission to get into the precedent of deferring action on agenda items because not everyone is present. He wanted to try to do as much as they could while they were all there so they don't get into a system of deferring, because they will always have the problem of not everyone being present. Mr. Sakaguchi said his reason for deferral is because this is the first meeting and because some of the commissioners have an easier time getting out of work and attending the meeting than others. He said he did not want to discriminate against someone who cannot take the time out. However, if someone consistently cannot make the regular meetings, the Mayor may need to think about replacing them. Ms. Cushnie asked if there were any further discussion. She then asked if she as the temporary chair may speak. Mr. Joseph said she could be part of the discussion. She said that the agenda was sent out at least a week ago and that all the Commission members knew what was on the agenda. She felt that if she could not be present for any reason, she would want the other members to go ahead and proceed with business. She said she has no interest in being the chair and in forcing the issue today, but the opportunity is here and they are adequately represented and so should proceed in choosing the chair and vice chair. She said it could be open to future discussion if they should decide to rotate chairmanship. She would like to feel a sense of accomplishment in getting through this today and in moving on with the agenda. Ms. Cushnie said the motion is back on the floor, to defer the election until March 16, 2006. She asked all who was in favor of the deferral: Mr. Sakaguchi voted aye. Ms. Cushnie asked all those opposed to deferring the election to vote. Mr. Miyasato, Ms. Stremski, Mr. Joseph, and Ms. Cushnie voted in opposition to the deferral. The motion to defer was denied. Ms. Cushnie moved on to the election of officers for discussion. Mr. Sakaguchi said he had a question: If he were to leave right now, would there be a quorum? Ms. Garson said no. He said that the motion would then be automatically deferred. He said he did not want to use the threat of leaving but said the meeting has gone on for two and one -half hours and that he is on medication and needs to eat. Ms. Cushnie asked Mr. Sakaguchi if he would like them to break for lunch. He said that since some of the members wanted to go ahead with the meeting, to go ahead and do so. Mr. Joseph said he believed they could finish the meeting in about 20 more minutes. Mr. Sakaguchi said he had food in the car and that he would try to hold on. Ms. Garson explained that in nominating the chair and vice chair, they could nominate for chair and vice chair together, or do it individually with first the chair and then the vice chair. Mr. Sakaguchi moved that the chair be elected first. Mr. Miyasato seconded. 15 Ms. Cushnie asked if there were any nominations. Mr. Sakaguchi nominated Mr. Miyasato as chair. Ms. Stremski seconded. Mr. Miyasato nominated Mr. Joseph as chair. Mr. Joseph said he would rather be nominated for vice chair and would support Mr. Miyasato's nomination for chair. Ms. Cushnie said she would also nominate Mr. Miyasato as chair and asked if there were further discussion or nominations. Ms. Garson had Ms. Cushnie clarify what the motion was, whether it was for Mr. Miyasato as chair and Mr. Joseph for vice chair. Ms. Cushme said the motion was for Mr. Miyasato to be chair for the Cost of Government Commission. Mr. Cushnie asked all those in favor of Mr. Miyasato being chair of the Cost of Government Commission to raise their hand. The four other members raised their hand, and Mr. Miyasato was elected chair. Mr. Sakaguchi asked Ms. Cushnie if she was still the chair for the rest of today's meeting. Ms. Garson said that generally speaking, once a real chair was elected, that person took over as chair. Ms. Cushnie congratulated Mr. Miyasato on now being chair. Mr. Miyasato asked for nominations for vice chair. Ms. Stremski nominated Mr. Joseph. Ms. Cushnie seconded. Mr. Sakaguchi nominated Ms. Cushme as chair. Ms. Cushnie said she had to respectfully decline. Mr. Sakaguchi then nominated Ms. Stremski, and Ms. Stremski said that for personal reasons she had to decline the nomination also. Mr. Sakaguchi then nominated Marilyn Nicholson, who was not present at this meeting. Ms. Cushnie asked if Ms. Nicholson could be nominated, as she was not in a position to decline. Ms. Garson looked up the rules and said that it did not state that a person could not be nominated if not present. Mr. Miyasato said the nomination of Ms. Nicholson would be accepted and asked if there were a second to the motion. Ms. Cushnie seconded the nomination of Ms. Nicholson, stating that there would be two viable candidates. Mr. Miyasato asked if there were any other nominations, and no others were made. Ms. Stremski moved to close the nominations for vice chair, and Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion. Mr. Miyasato asked for all those in favor of Mr. Joseph as vice chair to raise their hands. Ms. Stremski, Ms. Cushnie, Mr. Joseph, and Mr. Miyasato raised their hands (four votes). Mr. Miyasato asked that all those in favor of Ms. Nicholson as vice chair to raise their hands. Mr. Sakaguchi raised his hand (one vote). Mr. Miyasato pronounced that Mr. Joseph was elected as vice chair. Mr. Miyasato moved the meeting on to agenda item No. 10. OR 10. DISCUSSION OF ANY RULE REVISIONS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONERS Ms. Garson said there is a whole procedure needed to do rule revisions but that the commissioners could discuss it. The commissioners previously discussed possibly changing the meeting schedule but had decided to keep it on the first and third Thursdays for now. Mr. Miyasato moved on to item No. 11. 11. DISCUSSION /ACTION REGARDING APPROACH TO TAKE TO TIMELY ACCOMPLISH MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Ms. Garson said the Commission knows what its task is, and this was to discuss how to go about accomplishing that task. The prior Commission had called in a representative from each department to do a presentation and put together a packet. She said the commissioners need to discuss whether they are going to prioritize which departments will be looked at, and issues like that. Ms. Stremski said it looked like eleven departments had been looked at and given recommendations and that she was curious how many recommendations had been implemented. Mr. Joseph explained that the handouts from Dixie Kaetsu were supposed to answer that. Ms. Stremski suggested that they then look at those departments that were not audited by the previous Commission rather than wasting time on departments that were already done. Mr. Sakaguchi said that it had earlier been said that all departments are supposed to present a budget, so presumably the Mayor's Office and the Council are looking at what kind of changes should be made in the budget process. He said he is not sure if this Commission needs to take the same approach as the prior one. He said he is interested in "talking story" and seeing how they might approach the problem rather than going from department to department and activity to activity. If the discussion is not fruitful, they could go at it another way. He said that in talking story, they could look at issues such as privatization; whether a program could be offered where employees all year long are encouraged to make suggestions; and whether there could be an open line to the community where ideas could be expressed. He said he is interested in doing a broad overview first. Ms. Garson read the Charter where it described what the Commission is to do: Each Commission shall "study and investigate the organization and methods of operations of all departments, commissions, boards, offices, and other instrumentalities of all branches of the County government and determine what changes, if any, may be desirable to accomplish the policy set forth herein." She said the prior Commission probably did go from department to department because of the mandate of the Charter. Therefore, they cannot just look at the broad issues but need to look at the details. Mr. Joseph said that in looking at Solid Waste, they could perhaps look at areas within Solid Waste where privatization might be recommended, but to generalize privatization for the entire County would not be appropriate. 17 Ms. Garson said privatization is a little outside of what they are to study but that it could possibly be worked in when looking at specific departments. Ms. Cushnie suggested, along the lines of what Mr. Sakaguchi said, that they task Ms. Garson with finding two diverse points of view within the County government -- department heads who will come and speak specifically about their department and opportunities for privatization, and at least begin discussion on a limited basis. Ms. Garson indicated that the Commission needed to direct her on which departments they wanted and not leave the discretion to her as staff attorney. Mr. Sakaguchi apologized and said he hadn't been very clear. He just wanted them to talk story about their philosophy on the project — should they go detail by detail, requiring a lot of their time to understand each department, or could they take an overview approach, just to bounce ideas off each other. He said he would just like to know what each member is thinking about the project. Ms. Cushnie said that before she got appointed to this Commission, she had started a short list of things that she'd observed on the mainland, where precedents were set by mainland counties. One is the requirement for vacant lot owners to maintain their lots so they are not susceptible to brush fires. These types of small inquiries are what she is interested in making to various departments, on her own or with another Commission member. She said these types of questions may have a small but important impact on the cost of government. Mr. Sakaguchi said he believes all the members have their own ideas about issues like that and that they should share ideas. Ms. Cushnie said she was interested in polling the different departments, by herself or with another commissioner, and ask questions of them. Ms. Garson suggested that it may be more efficient for a letter to be drafted with their inquiries, which could be sent to each department. From a technical standpoint it may be easier to do it this way than to form a subcommittee to go in person to each department. The departments will be happy to share any information they can, especially in responding to specific questions. Mr. Miyasato asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to break for lunch and continue their meeting afterwards. Mr. Joseph said they needed to establish an agenda so that the public would know what would be discussed in the next meeting and questioned whether privatization should be listed as a topic. Ms. Garson said the way the agenda is written, they were talking about methodology. So if the methodology they decide today is to start discussing the various issues, e.g., privatization, they need to be specifically listed on the agenda. The commissioners were told to let their secretary know what items they wanted on the agenda. W; Mr. Miyasato asked if item 11 could be deferred until the next meeting. Mr. Sakaguchi moved to deter item 11 to the next meeting. Ms. Cushnie seconded. Ms. Garson told the members if they wanted to put something on the next agenda, they need to get the information to their secretary by next Tuesday (March 7, 2006). After Mr. Miyasato asked if there were any further discussion, he asked for a vote. All members voted to defer item 11 to the next agenda. The motion was carried. 12. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA Mr. Sakaguchi moved to adopt Ms. Garson's suggestion to give members until Tuesday to give the secretary items they want placed on the next agenda. Ms. Garson explained that they don't have to specify at today's meeting everything they want on the next agenda —they just need to get the information to their secretary by March 7, 2006. In discussing the next agenda items, the commissioners said to include the list of County - owned lands and a discussion on the responses to the previous COGC report. Ms. Cushnie mentioned the need for parking passes for the members so they don't get a ticket for parking at the County Building. Mr. Sakaguchi suggested putting on the next agenda a discussion on setting a cap on the length of the meetings, in order to keep the discussion moving along. If they run out of time on an issue, it can be continued to the next agenda. Mr. Miyasato asked if there were any more items for the next agenda and upon no response moved to the next item. 13. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present at this time. 14. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Miyasato announced that the next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at the conference room at the Department of Liquor Control. 15. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Joseph moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. All members voted to adjourn the meeting. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. rosson, Secretary 19