Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-20 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 Thursday, February 20, 2014 – 9:00 a.m. Puna Conference Room – County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1501 Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Commission Members present: Susan Maddox, Chair Ashley Kierkiewicz, Vice Chair Doug Espejo Glen Mastuda Delan Perry John Mitchell Linda M. Kelly Also present: Wally Lau, Managing Director, ex-officio member Katherine A. Garson, Assistant Corporation Counsel Jennifer M. Kualii, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Wally Lau at 9:05 a.m. Mr. Lau introduced himself as the ex-officio member of the commission and thanked the commissioners for giving up their time, energy and talents to serve on this commission. He stated all commissions are important because they serve the community which is the people of this island. He stated he came to Hawai‘i Island about 15 years ago after working for Kamehameha Schools and wanted to spend more time with family and enjoying the beauty of this island. He started a little non-profit on the West side and wanted to give back to the community. He believes that healthy families make healthy communities and one way to do that is getting involved. 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Lau suggested the commissioners introduce themselves. Mr. Espejo is retired and has lived here most of his life. He plays music and is active in sports. He’s been on the Transportation Commission for about 10 years and is looking for ways to streamline government. Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ms. Kierkiewicz was born and raised in Hilo and this is her first commission. She serves on the Economic Development Board and Zonta Club of Hilo. She’s driven to serve the community and eager to learn and offer her wisdom. Mr. Mitchell is a Social Studies teacher at Kealakehe High School for the past 10 years. He is originally from Orange County and is currently on the Board for his church and plays bass on the worship team. He brings his legal, real estate background and looks forward to help the community and this Island. Mr. Matsuda is a retired tax auditor from the Labor Department. He served on the Fire Commission and the past Cost of Government Commission. He is active with the PTA, Jaycees and Lion’s Club. He’s looking forward to see what he can do to add to the primary goal of the commission. Ms. Maddox serves as the executive team leader of a non-profit based in Waimea called Friends of the Future. She’s lived in Hawai‘i for 45 years and is hoping her non-profit background will be of use for this commission as it looks at different ways to better serve the community. Ms. Kelly has been in Hawai‘i for 22 years and has been a real estate broker for 30 years. She is originally from Canada and is of native American Indian, French and Irish decent. She is happy to serve and give back to the community. Mr. Perry was born on Oahu and moved to the Big Island in 1974. He currently is a farmer and manager of the Kino‘ole Farmers Market. He currently serves on the Water Board and has been on the Workforce Investment Board for about 10 years. He brings his agricultural experience to the commission. Mr. Lau thanked everyone for sharing and said that everyone has some great connections to make healthy conversations and that this commission will not be a canoe that just paddles around in circles. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None. 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS (Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson) Mr. Lau asked if there were any nominations for Chairperson. Motion and Vote : Ms. Kelly moved to nominate Ms. Maddox as Chairperson. Mr. Matsuda seconded the motion. Nominations were closed and all commissioners present voted aye to elect Ms. Maddox as Chairperson. Mr. Lau stated Ms. Maddox can now carry on with the agenda. (Mr. Lau leaves the meeting at 9:23 a.m.) 2 Ms. Garson advised Ms. Maddox there needs to be a nomination for vice chairperson. Mr. Matsuda nominated Ms. Kierkiewicz for Vice-Chairperson. Ms. Kierkiewicz nominated Mr. Matsuda Ms. Kelly seconded Ms. Kierkiewicz’s nomination of Mr. Matsuda. Mr. Matsuda declines nomination. Motion and Vote: Mr. Matsuda moved to nominate Ms. Kierkiewicz as Vice- Chairperson. Ms. Kelly seconded the motion. Nominations were closed and all commissioners present voted aye to elect Ms. Kierkiewicz as Vice-Chairperson. 5. PRESENTATION REGARDING COMMISSION FINANCES AND GENERAL OVERVIEW OF COUNTY FINANCES Ms. Garson introduced Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of the Finance Department to provide the commissioners with a general overview of the County’s finances. Ms. Sako provided each commissioner a one-page handout on guidelines for boards and commissions members regarding mileage, reimbursement and other travel expenses. Ms. Sako also provided each commissioner with the County of Hawai‘i’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. 6. PRESENTATION ON SUNSHINE LAW, PROTOCOL Ms. Garson gave a Powerpoint presentation and provided each commissioner a copy of her presentation “The Sunshine Law”. 7. PRESENTATION REGARDING DUTIES OF COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION AND APPROACH TAKEN BY PREVIOUS COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS Ms. Garson gave a Powerpoint presentation and provided each commissioner a copy of her presentation “Duties of the Cost of Government Commission”. 8. DISCUSSION OF ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (Filed with the County Clerk on 01-31-03) Ms. Garson stated the 2003 Cost of Government Commission did pass some procedural rules which talked about when regular meetings would be held. At this point, if the commission doesn’t have anything to propose, this item could be placed on hold. 3 She informed the commission that for rule making purposes, the commission would have to hold public hearings, publish it and then submit for approval. Mr. Matsuda noted that since the meetings were set for the first and third Thursdays, in order to change that it, it would have to be the decision of the body. Ms. Garson affirmed and noted the commission would have to give proper notice. 9. DISCUSSION/ACTION REGARDING APPROACH TO TAKE TO TIMELY ACCOMPLISH MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Ms. Garson stated a report will need to be completed in 11 months pursuant to the County Charter. Ms. Maddox wondered if anything had been implemented from the previous commission because she noted some carried over and if this commission’s time would be better served looking in other areas to move more quickly. Ms. Garson stated one of the first things the last Cost of Government Commission did was send a letter to everyone. Two letters went out, one went to those who had previous recommendations and ones that didn’t. She stated the commission could do that again, send out letters to all department heads and boards and commissions and ask them what was done with their previous recommendation and respond by a certain date. Ms. Maddox noted the letters looked good but it didn’t say what came back or whether or not the recommendations were implemented. Mr. Mitchell stated this is half of what the commission wants. Ms. Kelly stated if the commission already has the answers, it would just be copied. Ms. Garson replied that it came from the last commission. Ms. Maddox inquired that when the letters were sent out with what the recommendations were, did the departments and boards and commissions respond and share what they implemented or not? Ms. Kierkiewicz stated essentially this commission wants to know if what the last commission recommended was implemented. The departments could respond by a certain date and the commission could schedule follow-up meetings to interview the departments. Ms. Garson stated that could be done now. She also said the commission could decide how they would want the report done; the last commission outlined in their report the procedure they followed and what they did. The letters can be sent out but the commission has to authorize the Chairperson to sign those letters. Ms. Maddox asked if the communication could be online. 4 Ms. Garson replied it could be by email. Ms. Maddox wondered if it was open for employees to comment back online using something like Survey Monkey. Ms. Garson stated the employees can communicate with the board’s secretary. She could collect all the responses and provide them to the commissioners. Ms. Maddox stated she was thinking about how information could be gathered to allow people anonymity and allow the commission to structure questions that could bring back answers to be analyzed. Ms. Garson stated previous letters said the prior Cost of Government Commission issued a report on a certain date and in that report the Cost of Government Commission made the following recommendations for your department and to advise the commission if your department implemented those recommendations and if it wasn’t implemented to state why. Ms. Kierkiewicz asked if the commission could add to that and ask the departments how they could be more efficient and the challenges they would face. Mr. Matsuda stated the last commission wasn’t getting very good timely responses. Ms. Garson noted the last commission spent a lot of time trying to figure out what were essential services. She suggested inviting department heads to the meetings to make presentations at which time follow up questions could be asked. Mr. Matsuda stated they had meetings at the Managing Director’ office and was surprised to see how much monies were going to DEM and that he’s seen some changes at the landfill. He said there are a lot of different avenues to explore in various departments. The commission needs to go through the previous reports, brainstorm and come up with a questionnaire that can be applicable to everyone. Ms. Maddox noted that Mr. Perry is interested in the energy question and that would be something that would go across all departments. Mr. Matsuda agreed. Ms. Kierkiewicz asked if the commission wants to give the departments an option to respond via letter or make a presentation. Mr. Matsuda stated the last commission had committees that were tasked with certain departments. Ms. Maddox asked Mr. Matsuda what things he thought was really effective if they were changed. 5 Mr. Matsuda replied that the commission waited a long time for responses from various departments. He thinks the first letter that should go out would be something generic, basically saying what the commission is doing and its concerns. Mr. Matsuda also stated that some departments came and did presentations on a particular subject to give the commission an oversight of the department and the commissioners were able to ask questions then. Ms. Garson stated the generic letters were sent out and when the responses came back some of the commissioners wanted to follow up with the departments and invited them to the meeting. Motion and Vote : Mr. Perry moved to have the commission send a letter to all the departments that had specific recommendations from the last Cost of Government Commission and authorize Ms. Maddox to sign that letter. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion and all commissioners present voted aye. Ms. Garson noted that notices were sent to all employees with their paychecks. Ms. Maddox stated some of the best ideas come from the ones that are on the ground working everyday and even if you get one or two recommendations implemented it grows from there. Ms. Garson stated the notice to employees has two simple questions, 1) how can the County save money while not compromising essential services and 2) how government can function more efficiently. She said the commission can also change the questions in the notice to employees. Ms. Maddox said she would consider rewording as the questions now are both yes/no questions and would also like the notice to go out to all employees. Ms. Garson suggested asking, what ideas do you have for the County to save money while not compromising essential services. Motion and Vote: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to have a letter sent to all employees asking them ways the County can save money without compromising essential services and ways the County can function more efficiently. Ms. Kelly seconded the motion and all commissioners present voted aye. Ms. Garson clarified that the letter to employees and the letter to departments with previous recommendations have already been discussed and agreed upon. She asked the commission to review the prior letter to department heads which asked them to list the primary functions and services of their departments or commissions, what opportunities could be consolidated and ways to enhance revenue. Ms. Maddox said that last time, departments got two letters a month apart; 1) asking what their functions are and; 2) what did they do with their previous recommendations. She asked if it was possible to combine these two questions into one letter. 6 Mr. Perry suggested asking the departments what is on their wish list. Ms. Kierkiewicz suggested including items 2-5 (from the previous letter to department heads) in addition to their recommendations from the last report. Ms. Kelly asked Mr. Matsuda if he thought the commission would have a better reply if the departments do a presentation. Mr. Matsuda replied it depends on scheduling and time constraints because one department is probably going to take up an entire meeting. Ms. Kelly stated that’s probably why the sub-committees were created. Ms. Kierkiewicz stated she liked that approach and the commission should use their time to analyze the information gathered and come up with recommendations. Ms. Kelly noted she would like to have the departments provide a one page summary of their implementation of their recommendations so that there would be no misinterpretation. She stated it would provide clarification and transparency. Ms. Kierkieweicz stated the commission could give the department heads an option of either responding in writing or meet with them. She would rather meet with them and hear what they have to say but not require the department heads to create a one page summary. Mr. Mitchell noted he felt uncomfortable with requiring the department heads to provide a summary. Mr. Espejo stated the letters should be kept simple and inform them of the commission’s charge. Ms. Kelly agreed and stated she likes the simplicity of the letters. Ms. Kierkiewicz clarified that for the departments where no recommendations were made, the commission would be sending a letter asking them for suggestions. Ms. Kelly stated that’s the third letter. Ms. Maddox clarified that Mr. Espejo wanted to be consistent across all of the letters so the responses are also consistent with the commission’s charge rather than creating different questions for departments. Ms. Kelly agreed; she stated the letter to the department heads and commissions should include if their recommendations were implemented as well as the four simple questions. Motion and Vote : Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to include in all of the letters the following four questions: 1) limiting expenditures to the lowest amount consistent with the efficient performance of essential services, activities and functions; 2) eliminating duplication and overlapping of services, activities and functions; 3) consolidating services, activities and functions of a similar nature; and 7 4) abolishing services, activities and functions not necessary to the efficient conduct of government. Ms. Kelly seconded the motion and all commissioners present voted aye. Ms. Maddox stated there was a notion of sub-committees and the ability to individually look at particular departments. Mr. Matsuda stated it was good to have two people because what one person didn’t think of the other person did. Ms. Maddox asked the commission for their thoughts. Ms. Kierkiewicz and Mr. Mitchell liked the idea of teams. Ms. Kelly asked if the sub-committee meetings with the department could be audio recorded. Mr. Mitchell stated not everyone would like that and Mr. Matsuda agreed but said he would go with the majority. Ms. Kelly asked if a report of the meeting with the department heads were turned in to the commission. Mr. Matsuda replied it was all verbal. Ms. Kierkiewicz asked if the commissioners are going to break up into sub- committees and would the sub-committees be responsible for producing a write-up for the rest of the commissioners to work off of. Mr. Matsuda stated there wasn’t any difficulty coming up with notes and discussing what was discussed with the individual departments and it was presented to the commission that way. Ms. Garson commented that some sub-committees passed out a report. She also noted that if the sub-committees wanted their meetings recorded, they should invite the departments to the commission meeting since it is already being recorded. Ms. Maddox confirmed that the commission wanted to have sub-committees. She stated the commissioners should be thinking about questions to ask the departments and bring it back to the next meeting for discussion. She also asked the commissioners to read the previous reports before the next meeting and discuss what would be a high priority on where the commission should start and focus on to develop a strategy for going forward. (Break: 11:38 a.m. – 11:48 a.m.) 10. ITEMS TO BE PLACE ON THE NEXT AGENDA Ms. Maddox stated the standing agenda items would be: Call the meeting to order Statements from the public Discussion/action regarding approach to take to timely accomplish mandate of the Cost of Government Commission Items to be placed on the next agenda 8 Other items to be placed on the next agenda: Discussion of past reports Assignment/action of sub-committees Ms. Garson suggested if the commissioners wanted the departments to do a presentation, the departments could be invited to the meeting and give a generic report. Mr. Perry suggested the Energy Advisory. Ms. Kierkiewicz suggested the Department of Environmental Management. Ms. Maddox stated that for the next meeting, the commissioners are going to bring to the table questions that would go across all departments. Ms. Kelly commented she liked the idea of generic questions the sub-committees can use to interview the departments. Ms. Maddox stated that at this point, the commission would not hear from anyone but would be doing their internal organization. Mr. Mitchell stated he liked the clean focus; the commissioners have a lot on their plate for the next two weeks to digest all this information and hopes that in this small amount of time, this commission can bring some positive change. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING LOCATIONS/DATES/TIMES OF FUTURE MEETINGS/VIDEOCONFERENCING Ms. Kelly noted she will be off island for the next meeting and asked if the commission would be able to move the next meeting. Mr. Mitchell replied he’s flexible. Ms. Maddox will not be available; the first and third Thursdays work, but any other Thursdays she has standing commitments. Mr. Perry stated he will be out of state for April 3 meeting. Mr. Matsuda asked if anyone had objections to having future meetings start at 1:00 in the afternoon. Ms. Kierkiewiecz stated she prefers afternoon as she has a standing meeting every Thursday morning. Mr. Perry noted after 10:00 a.m. works. Ms. Kelly noted she’s fine with the afternoon. Ms. Kierkiewicz stated the commission could use videoconferencing and asked if the meetings could last 2, no more that 2 ½ hours? Ms. Garson replied it’s up to the commission. Ms. Maddox stated if the commissioners agreed to do their homework and come prepared for discussion and action at the meetings, she would certainly hold the meetings to task. Mr. Mitchell asked if meetings could be held on the Kona side. Ms. Garson replied we will explore what venues are available. Mr. Espejo noted that the commission could meet in Waimea as well. 9 Ms. Garson asked if video conferencing would be optimal; however if connection is lost, the meeting is over. Ms. Maddox replied it would be practical. She also said that th the commission is going to stay with March 6 at 1:00 p.m. for the next meeting. th Ms. Kelly noted that since she won’t be here for the March 6 meeting, she does want to participate and be assigned to a sub-committee. Ms. Garson asked Ms. Kelly if there was a particular area she was interested in. Ms. Kelly replied no, she would have to review the reports in more detail. Ms. Kelly suggested that committees be created as A, B, C and D with no designated person and be assigned specific departments or commissions and assign commissioners to those committees. Mr. Matsuda commented that Ms. Kelly could jump in with any committee or pick one; she won’t be left out. Ms. Maddox stated there are more than enough departments and board and commission for all commissioners to be active in. She asked Ms. Kelly if she’s comfortable with that. Ms. Kelly replied yes. 12. ANNOUNCEMENTS th Ms. Maddox announced the next meeting will be held on March 6, 1:00 p.m. at the Office of Aging. 13. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Mr. Matsuda moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mitchell and all commissioners present voted aye. Meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Jennifer M. Kualii Jennifer M. Kualii, Secretary 10