Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2009-08-14.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION 6th Session Friday, August 14, 2009 County Council Chambers Ben Franklin Bldg. 2nd Floor 333 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon, today is August 14, 2009 and the time is approximately 1:35 p.m. I call this meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. We are at the County Council Room at the Ben Franklin Building in Hilo. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Ms. Daphne Honma, Commissioner Ms. Casey Jarman, Commissioner Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner -Elect Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Excused: Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chair Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner Also Present: Mr. Bill Takaba, Managing Director Mr. Michael Ben, Director, Human Resources Mr. Jay Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney Mr. Michael Udovic, Corporation Counsel Ms. Martha Rodillas, Corporation Counsel Ms. Molly Udovic, Corporation Counsel Mr. Rodney Oshiro, Deputy County Clerk Ms. Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator Mr. Levi Hookano, Legal Specialist Ms. Valerie Victorine, Admin. Assistant to Deputy County Clerk Mrs. Maile David, Legislative Assistant (videoconference, Kona) Mrs. Manu Hanano (videoconference, Waimea) Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary CHR. HAITSUKA: Before we start today, we have a new Commission Member, Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, who I would like to welcome to the Commission. We have Managing Director, Bill Takaba, to swear him in. Mr. Takaba. WILLIAM TAKABA (At this time William Takaba, Managing Director, came forward to administer the Oath of Office to new Charter Commissioner, Guy Kaulukukui.) MR. TAKABA: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I (Commissioner Kaulukukui repeating in the background) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as a member of the County of Hawaii Charter Commission to the best of my ability. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Takaba. Mr. Kaulukukui, before we start would you like to say a few words about yourself? MR. KAULUKUKUI: Not really, but thank you for the opportunity. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS CHR. HAITSUKA: We have two speakers today. First up we have Prosecuting Attorney, Jay Kimura. Mr. Kimura. JAY KIMURA (At this time Jay Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission) MR. KIMURA: Good afternoon, Chairman Haitsuka and Members of the Commission. I do apologize for not being able to be here for the last session you had. I had some personal matters to attend to on Maui. I just have two items and I believe I made enough copies for everyone to look at regarding the Charter Amendments. The first is a matter that really surfaced on Oahu and it resulted in a civil suit. It is related to the role of the Prosecutor in promoting or advocating change within the system and using City and County resources. If you recall, there were several Constitutional amendments and one was related to victim's rights and those types of matters. Because of that, the City and County decided to amend their Charter to make it clear that it was within the role of the Prosecutor to advocate different positions to educate the public. We do that to some extent currently, and we haven't had any problems in the County of Hawaii. However, I think it will be worthwhile to at least review that if you agree that it should be a change to the Hawaii County Charter. The second is a matter that I proposed to you, and I didn't provide any language because it is a removal. Currently in the Charter, as it relates to the Corporation Counsel, there is an absolute bar from the Corporation Counsel getting involved in representing any elected 2 official in an impeachment action. I found that unusual, it's not in the other Charters, and I looked at the Oahu Charter. My experience is that a lot of times you might perform an act that is within the scope of your duties, and some people may not be happy with that and may very well move to try and impeach you. In one situation Councilmembers accepted some funds from the State for marijuana eradication. It was sort of a "pass through" to the Police Department, but because they accepted the funds and because some people felt that there were insufficient program reviews of the whole program, there was an actual court case to impeach the Councilmembers. The Councilmembers themselves could not be represented by Corporation Counsel; they had to defend themselves on their own in Court. If you understand the way the State contracts, when they pass through money to the counties, they'll include a phrase in there that there is no indemnification from the state. So, they want you to do something, and they'll give you the money even if it's "pass through" money from the Federal Government, but they'll stick in a clause saying there is no indemnification. Not only did the Councilmembers have to defend themselves personally against impeachment, which they won, but they were also exposed to personal liability. I think it creates a "chilling factor" for the Councilmembers to perform their duties. Whether you agree or disagree with what they did, I think they should at least have the ability to be represented by the Corporation Counsel if they're performing duties within the scope of their job. And in that case, I believe they were. Those are the only two amendments that I have. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have a question for you, Mr. Kimura. In the materials that you gave us today there is a proposed resolution from the Honolulu City Council, and there is some language underlined. Is that the language that you want us to look at and consider? MR. KIMURA: Pretty much, except for the title of the County. I think it says City and County of Honolulu and for Hawaii it would just be Hawaii County. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any other questions for Mr. Kimura? Thank you. Next we have Brenda Ford in Kona. (At this time Brenda Ford addressed members of the Charter Commission by videoconference form the Kona County Council Office.) MS. FORD: Good afternoon, I'm Brenda Ford. I'm speaking on Communication CA -4, ARTICLE XII, Removal of Elected Officers. I'm speaking on two different Chapters. Chapter 1 is on Recall. This section definitely needs some definitions in it. Some things that are in the body of the Chapter need to be defined in a better matter. I think that it is important that if somebody is recalled, they not be allowed to re -enter office. Currently, vacancies are filled- -and the section I'm about to refer to needs to be amended too - -by the County Council, or, if we cannot do it in 30 days, by the Chairman of the Council. I personally think that a special election should be held if there is more than six months left in the term of office for someone who has been either recalled or impeached. If somebody is recalled, I think they should not be allowed to enter an elective office for at least four years. And if a vacancy needs to be filled, and it's more than six months, I think a special election 3 by mail, which is allowed by the State HRS, should be how the office is filled rather than by the Council or by the Chairman of the Council. Also, in Section 12 -1.1, Recall Procedure, under (b) it currently takes 25% of the qualified voters in the Council's district to remove their Councilmember, or 25% of the registered voters in the last general election. It may be, in the case of the Councilmember, that they were elected in the primary election. It seems rather unfair for them to have won in the primary, and then if you want to remove that person, a higher standard of qualified voters in the general election would be used. I think you need to determine whether you really mean general or you really mean primary or you mean whichever election in which that person was elected, if that was the primary or the general. Also, it's 25 %, and I think that's far too high. It's very difficult to recall somebody. I think that it should be a 15% or greater rather than 25% or greater. In Section 12 -1.3, for signatures, this is the old style signatures. In the last general election we passed the Initiative and Referendum, which made it much less likely for a person's signature to be disqualified from a petition. I would refer you to that section where instead of having their name, their signature, their residence address, and the date it was signed, we did their name, as closely as it mimics their registered name in the general ledger of the County. For instance, if you had a first name that could be shortened from Joseph to Joe and the person signed Joe, under the rules that exist here, their signature could be disqualified from the petition. I would suggest you see the Initiative and Referendum that we passed in the last general election and use that for the signature line. It's the name, the signature that closely mimics the general ledger, their address -- either mailing or residence - -and the last four digits of their social security number. It's really immaterial what day of the week or date of the month that they signed the petition because they will all be turned in simultaneously by the committee. I think you should take a look at the days for filing and certification. They may be too short, not giving sufficient time to allow the committee to take care of it. Secondly, on Impeachment, you have no definitions in this section. For those of us who are not attorneys, you have to look in something equivalent to Black's Law dictionary to understand what malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance and maladministration means. Those should be well defined in this section, and I recommend Black's Law dictionary for that. And for impeachment, which is usually an illegal act, it requires 2% of the registered voters. I still think that is too high, it seem to me 1% of the registered voters would be more reasonable. Again, whether it is the general election or the primary election, I hope you have a discussion on that because it can be quite different in the number of people who are registered, and those who vote. In the case of impeachment for an illegal act, or for impeachment in general, I think that person should not be able to be re- elected to an office for at least eight years. You may want to consider, since they've done an illegal act, that they not be appointed to any office for that period of time. That concludes my comments, if you have any questions I will be available. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Ford. Do we have anybody in Waimea to testify? MS. HANANO: We have no one here in Waimea to testify. 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next on our agenda is Approval of the Minutes for the meeting of July 17, 2009. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Mr. Kealoha moved to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2009 Hawaii County Charter Commission meeting. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any discussion? The motion to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2009 Hawaii County Charter Commission meeting was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. COMMUNICATIONS Communication 24: From Council Member Brenda Ford, dated July 29, 2009, requesting a presentation on the process of amending the County Charter be made to the Hawaii County Council on August 18, 2009. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to Communications. Is there any discussion? MS. JARMAN: May I ask Ms. Ford a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes MS. JARMAN: She's not there any more. I was wondering if she wanted a presentation on the Charter Commission's process, or the whole Charter and what it currently provides. It wasn't clear to me. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, you spoke to Ms. Ford about what she wanted. MR. HOOKANO: Not precisely about what she wanted, but I was under the impression that it was the process that the Charter Commission goes through and how it interacts with the Council. That was my impression of what it was. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? 5 MS. JARMAN: It looks like she is coming back, so if we could wait for her to come back. CHR. HAITSUKA: The August 18, 2009 meeting is going to be held in Kona next week, Tuesday. Is that right? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it will be held in Kona. It's actually for Council's Committee on Finance. It was placed on their agenda. MS. JARMAN: So, it's already on their agenda. MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it's on their agenda already. (At this time Brenda Ford addressed members of the Charter Commission by videoconference form the Kona County Council Office.) MS. FORD: Aloha, thank you. MS. JARMAN: Hi Ms. Ford, this is Casey. MS. FORD: Hi Casey. MS. JARMAN: I wanted to clarify your request for the presentation on amending the Charter. Did you want a presentation on the Charter Commission's procedures that they follow, or the procedures followed no matter how it is being implemented, whether it's from the Council, an individual, or the Charter Commission? MS. FORD: Just for the Charter Commission. I believe there is some confusion on the part of Council members, myself included, on whether or not the Charter Commission can - -for lack of a better word - -force an amendment on to the ballot if the Council members vote against it. We need some clarification on that, and on the timing, because we will be doing Charter amendments on our own and they may not be identical to what you do. Hopefully, we would be able to get Charter amendments passed through the Council on our own. If we can't, my question would be; can the Charter Commission do their own amendments, and can they put them on the ballot even if the Council doesn't agree with them? I understand how a Charter amendment goes through the Council; it's initiated by a Council member, but it's the Charter Commission amendments that are causing confusion. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Ford. I am going to recommend that our Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, attend the meeting and brief the Finance Committee. MR. HOOKANO: I'll actually be at that meeting anyways, if it's the Commission's decision. 0 MS. JARMAN: And what will you tell them? MR. HOOKANO: The short answer is that the Commission's amendments go on the ballot no matter what. That is the role of the Commission. The Council has input, but ultimately whatever you decide goes on the ballot, whether the Council wants it or not. MS. JARMAN: What would happen if there are two sort of competing amendments? Then, will it be up to the public to decide between the two, which they would prefer? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, there could be multiple questions on the same subject matter on the ballot at one time. Basically there would be an alternative; does the public want this amendment, or would it rather have this one, or will the public vote both down? Then it remains exactly how it is worded. So, it is possible to have multiple questions covering the same subject matter. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any other discussion? Ms Jarman, do we need to make a motion to have Mr. Hookano attend for us? Ms. Jarman moved to have Commission Attorney, Mr. Levi Hookano, attend the Council Finance Committee meeting on August 18, 2009 to respond to Communication 24. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. Communication 25: From Commission Secretary, Karen Eoff, dated August 4, 2009, regarding possible site locations for Charter Commission Public Hearings. The Commission may decide at this meeting on the locations and dates for the public hearings. CHR. HAITSUKA: The next communication is Communication 25. I will open this up for discussion. We can also discuss the timing for the meetings, because I think that will impact the availability of some of the locations. MS. JARMAN: I have a question, Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. 7 MS. JARMAN: Do we know how many people each of these venues, other than the Council Chambers seat? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Eoff, do you have that information? MS. EOFF: Aloha, my name is Karen Eoff, Secretary to the Charter Commission. No, I don't have that information, except I do know that the Liquor Commission seats about 25. MS. JARMAN: Did you say 25 or 125? MS. EOFF: Just 25. I could find out on the rest of them. These were given to me by the past Commission Secretary as places that they chose. MS. JARMAN: I wonder if we are likely to expect more than 25 people. It seems like a small venue, particularly since it is in Kona, and that's one of our larger population centers. That might not be large enough in the event we do get a significant number. MS. EOFF: I think in Kona there would be other options, like the Elementary Schools, that would seat more people or the High School Cafeteria too. MS. JARMAN: How big are the Waimea Civic Center and Community Center? Are they fairly large? Maybe we can ask our friends in Waimea; Manu, Pete? Councilmember Hoffmann, are you there? It looks like he might be on the phone. MR. KEALHOA: The Civic Center is fairly large. MS. JARMAN: So, it could hold a significant number of people. MR. KEALHOA: The Civic Center can hold about 50 people easily, but the main center at the Waimea Ball Park, they use it for parties, so I'm sure it would hold about 100. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Anybody have any information on the Na'alehu Community Center? MS. KAWAUCHI: I don't know how many people it can seat, it's fairly spacious. It's probably a good location. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui, do you know? As far as the timing, we have some first readings coming up today on four proposed amendments. I don't know if we should go out for public hearings after we do our first readings, so we can get input before we do our second and final. I think that's something we need to consider, especially with the four proposed amendments we have today. Do we wait until we do the public hearings; take them out to the community and then come back with their input and then do the final reading? So, that is up for discussion and consideration. Also timing; we still have some of the committees out doing their investigation and coming back with recommendations on certain 0 amendments. We need to get that back before we go out to the community. And if we are going to make any amendments, perhaps we need to consider if we are going to have first reading before we go out on those, or some type of alternative. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, could you refresh my memory on the time table for the community hearings. Do we have to have them by a certain date? CHR. HAITSUKA: There is no deadline. MR. HOOKANO: There is no deadline. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have our report due in March. Is that right, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: March 13, 2010, the report to the Council. CHR. HAITSUKA: And by that deadline, we need to have all of our second readings done by then. MR. HOOKANO: By that time, all the amendments should be completed and submitted to the Council. Because at that point the Council proposes alternatives to whatever the Commission comes up with. So, all the proposals from the Commission should be finished by that time. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, as far as the quorum for these district meetings, do we need full quorum? MR. HOOKANO: At least quorum. That is six members. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm thinking that if we are going to wait until we get all of the committee reports back, and do all of the first readings, we probably won't get to that until December. This is August, so maybe November. That is right around the holidays, I don't know if everybody can attend all of the outside meetings; but we can at least get a quorum. MS. JARMAN: Maybe early to mid November before the holiday season starts. I think our committee on redistricting and reapportionment should have our recommendations by the next meeting. I don't know about the others. And we should be through the whole Charter by our next meeting, is that correct? CHR. HAITSUKA: That's correct. MS. JARMAN: That would give us September, October. We could do the first readings in September, so maybe October; maybe between the October and November meetings. CHR. HAITSUKA: That is possible. D MR. HOOKANO: I just want to remind the Commission that the deadline, according to our rules, to propose amendments is October 31, 2009. So that is the last day to submit the CA Form with proposed amendments to be considered by the Commission, October 31, 2009. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, we cannot have any new proposals after that date? MR. HOOKANO: I think the rules allow for an exception, but for the most part, that is the drop dead deadline. MS. JARMAN: Then, we probably should meet before November in case the public comes up with something. It sounds like September or October. CHR. HAITSUKA: We're not limited by only six meetings. MR. HOOKANO: For the public hearings, the law just requires six. There is nothing that says you cannot go to more. MS. KAWAUCHI: Must they be held Monday through Friday, or can they be on a weekend? I'm just trying to think how to accommodate the public hearings if there are problems with scheduling for the commissioners during the week. I'm trying to figure out the logistics. Is there a requirement that it be Monday through Friday? MR. HOOKANO: No, there is no requirement for that. CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't know if we need to go out twice. Go out first before we hit our proposed amendment deadline of October 31, 2009, and go out a second time. I'm willing to go out more that once, but I don't know what everybody's schedule looks like. I think all we need is six commissioners present. Maybe we can break up the work. MR. SHUMWAY: I agree that we should try to go out earlier than November to allow the public to know what we are doing, know that we are there, and give them time to think about it. I would recommend we go earlier than later. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, maybe we can go out sometime in September, after our next meeting. I don't know if we should schedule five in a row, or six in a row. I don't know what everybody's schedule looks like, or if there are any preferences as far as weekends rather than weekdays. MS. KAWAUCHI: If we are going to look at calendars, I can share that in September most of my Fridays are blocked off for court appearances. I would have a hard time not making those. Fridays would be tough. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, you'll attend the Monday through Thursday meetings? MS. KAWAUCHI: I could try, depending on how we set the schedule. 10 CHR. HAITSUKA: For you, Ms. Jarman, working on Oahu; how is that going to work for your schedule? MS. JARMAN: If we did them several days in a row that would be hard for me. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do weekends work better for you? MS. JARMAN: Fridays are better for me. I teach Tuesday and Thursday, so Mondays or Fridays would be better for me. Are we going to do them in the evening, or during the day? CHR. HAITSUKA: We could possibly do two a day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, depending on where the districts are. I wouldn't want to drive from Ka`u to Waimea. We could get two in a day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. MS. KAWAUCHI: Maybe I should clarify, not every Friday in September is taken up. Friday, September 4, 2009 is okay and September 18, 2009 is okay too. But, September 11, 2009 and September 25, 2009 are not, I have court on those days. MR. SHUMWAY: Typically, aren't the meetings done at night, because if they are done during the day, wouldn't that pose a barrier to people who are working and not able to come and testify? CHR. HAITSUKA: I think it would, if were on a weekday; it would make it more difficult. If we have it on a weekday, I think we should think about doing it in the early evening. If we do it on the weekend, I was thinking maybe for Hilo and for Puna, which are fairly close, we can have one at 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon, and one at 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Then, we can get two done in one day. The same thing with Hamakua and Kohala, maybe do two of those in one day. Maybe we can do those on the weekend, and the others can be in the evenings. Is there any discussion? Mr. Hookano, how should we come up with a schedule? MR. HOOKANO: That is entirely up to the Commission how it wants to do it. There would have to be a motion for the public hearings, on when to hold them. MS. JARMAN: May I address Mr. Hookano? CHR. HAITSUKA: Sure. MS. JARMAN: Since we have to have one public hearing in each of the geographic areas, can we have one public hearing that encompasses Hilo, Kona and Kohala by having it here and Waimea office and Kona office? Then we would get three for the price of one. MR. HOOKANO: I think it might be possible, since the Sunshine Law allows for videoconference meetings. I'd rather look into that one a little closer though. I don't want to give a definitive statement now, but it sounds like it might be possible. 11 MS. JARMAN: It would save time and take advantage of the technology we have. MS. KAWAUCHI: I have another question. What is the anticipated length of the public hearings? Is it hard to predict, or do we have an idea of how long they might take? The reason I'm asking the question is if there is a proposal to do two a day, we would need to know that. CHR. HAITSUKA: I was hoping Mr. Fuertes could answer that because he's been on a prior Commission. I don't think any of us have that prior experience. Mr. Kealoha. MR. KEALHOA: I noticed for Kohala you have Waimea Civic Center. Are we combining North and South Kohala? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it is within the geographical district of Kohala, I believe. So, it would be an acceptable place, I believe. MR. KEALHOA: Normally, we are South Kohala, and then there is North Kohala. I don't see any meetings scheduled for North Kohala. Are we just using Waimea then? MS. EOFF: I believe these are the six geographical districts that we must go to, but Waimea and North and South Kohala would all be within the same geographical district. We could choose a different location for the meeting. MR. KEALHOA: I represent South Kohala and David Fuertes represents North Kohala. CHR. HAITSUKA: The Charter itself, Section 15 -3, is not specific, it just says Kohala. So they lump all of you guys together, sorry. MR. KEALHOA: That's fine with me, I was just letting you guys know. MS. KAWAUCHI: Is one idea that we try to have all of the public hearings in each of the geographical areas within one month, in the month of September? If that's the case, I don't think there is an easy way to do it, except to just choose some dates and see if people are available. Do you think that's alright, Mr. Chair? CHR. HAITSUKA: I think so. MS. KAWAUCHI: I'm trying to open this for discussion. Is there a feeling that weekends are not a good idea, and we should try to schedule them during the week? CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we might have a soccer coach or two here so - -- MS. KAWAUCHI: That means that it would be a weekday. CHR. HAITSUKA: But, if there are enough of us available on the weekends then perhaps we can have some on the weekends. 12 MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair, I'm representing the soccer coaches. I like your idea of possibly doing two meetings on a weekend; like Hamakua and Kohala, or Hilo and Puna. think that makes sense. I would be willing to give up a Saturday for that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. If we do it that way, I think we can do it in two weekends. At least we can do four districts in two weekends and maybe do the others during the weekday. Our next meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2009. If we want to start after the next meeting, it would be September 12, 2009, if we want to do it on a Saturday. It would be either on the 12th, the 19th or the 26th of September. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, if our next meeting is on September 11, 2009, would that take care of the Hilo geographic requirement, if we had it here? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, could we hold the public meeting right after our regular meeting? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it would be separate from the Commission's regular meeting. It would have to be a public hearing, and then the regular meeting or vice versa. They cannot be combined into one meeting. You would have to adjourn the regular meeting, and then convene the public hearing. CHR. HAITSUKA: What about notice, how much notice do we have to give the public? MR. HOOKANO: It is the same as for a regular meeting, six days notice. CHR. HAITSUKA: That might work to get the Hilo one out of the way. MS. HONMA: Is there a set time for how long that meeting needs to be? MR. HOOKANO: No, there are no time limits. To address the concerns about how long public meetings usually go, you can't really predict that. It's one of those things, you just never know. MS. HONMA: So, if nobody shows up, then there is no grace period? MR. HOOKANO: No, you just adjourn the meeting and that's it. MS. KAWAUCHI: If we have a Charter Commission meeting and a geographic meeting on September 11, 2009, that would leave us with five meetings. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, that might work. Is everyone available for the September 11, 2009 meeting? Alapaki, you are not. Would everyone be agreeable to staying a little bit later to have a public hearing? 13 MS. KAWAUCHI: Just to let you know, Mr. Chair, I have a mediation scheduled that day in the morning. I don't know how long it's going to go, but it is court ordered. If I have to be there all day, I may not be available in the afternoon. CHR. HAITSUKA: If everybody else can come, I think we should have a quorum. MS. JARMAN: Do we want to have Kona at the same time and use our videoconferencing? Maybe not Kohala, because of the concerns raised, we may want to go to Kohala. But, we could get Kona and Hilo at the same time. CHR. HAITSUKA: How would that work? People who want to testify would go to the Kona office of the County Council? MS. JARMAN: Yes, and Commission members can go there too, as long as we know ahead of time so it can be advertised correctly. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I guess that depends on what the definition of geographical area is. I guess it depends on how that is defined. I don't know if there is a section in the Charter to refer to that would help us with that. MR. HOOKANO: I believe the geographical areas are defined in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. MS. KAWAUCHI: That would lead me to another question. Do we know what that is, and do we want to take a recess to find out what the answer might be, and then come back on? MS. JARMAN: To make sure we can do the videoconferencing? MS. KAWAUCHI: Correct. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is that something you can determine fairly easily, or do you need more time? MR. HOOKANO: So long as the Office of Information Practices answers their phone. MS. JARMAN: Is it a Sunshine Law issue? MR. HOOKANO: I would check with them about the videoconferencing and how that satisfies meeting requirements. They might have an opinion on how that affects public hearings. MS. KAWAUCHI: Does the request to do that require a motion? CHR. HAITSUKA: To take a recess? No, I was just thinking about something. What the Charter says, Section 15 -3, it says in each of the geographical areas. So, I guess the question 14 is going to be whether or not doing it by videoconference is in that area, and if that satisfies the requirement. So, I'll leave that to the Commission Attorney to make the determination. MS. JARMAN: I would bet there is not a definitive answer to that question. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just raise a political issue too. We do our meetings here in Hilo and I know that videoconferencing serves essentially the same purpose. But, there is an aspect of having us physically present that I am concerned about, especially if we don't go to Kona. It concerns me that we are not willing to go over there and hear them. For some people videoconferencing would be fine, but for others it might not be considered acceptable. I think we need to talk about that. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, discussion on whether or not the Commission should physically hold a meeting in each of the districts. Let's have some discussion on that. Mr. Shumway, you have a position. MR. SHUMWAY: I think we should physically go, at least to Kona. I think some people would really prefer us to make the effort to go over there and hear what they have to say. It may not be necessary, but I think politically it would be wise for us to do that. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, just to follow up on Mr. Shumway's comments, I think if we give the consideration to Kona we should give the same consideration to all of the districts. MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, that is my point. I think the idea is that we physically go to all of those places to give those people an opportunity to see us and talk to us. I think if we don't do that we open ourselves up to questions later. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: I think that's a very good point, sort of efficiency versus access to the public, and I think that access to the public is very important. I hadn't thought about it that way. CHR. HAITSUKA: I agree, and I live in Kona so that's not an inconvenience for me. I think I would prefer that we physically hold it out there and maybe we can open it up on this side if people want to participate. I would suggest having something physically in Kona. Back to scheduling, it seems like most of us can be here September 11, 2009, and that would take care of Hilo. We can put Hamakua and Kohala together. I don't' know if you have any objections, Mr. Kealoha, since it is your district. MR. KEALHOA: No, if anything it would be from David. CHR. HAITSUKA: Perhaps we could do those on a Saturday morning and afternoon. We're kind of working our way around the island. MS. OSBORNE: Would that be Saturday, September 12, 2009? 15 CHR. HAITSUKA: It could be Saturday September 12, 2009, if everybody is available or the majority of us are available. MR. SHUMWAY: I am not available on that day. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm not available. CHR. HAITSUKA: That's two, anyone else? MS. HONMA: I'm not sure; I've got to check when our physicals are for U.H. Hilo. I've got to confirm that first. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, that would leave - -- MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I may not be available if the Friday session that I have to go to carries over to Saturday. I think there is not a high likelihood of that happening. I have a mediation session scheduled for Friday, and sometimes the parties continue on to the next day; so if it's required that I attend then I would have to do that. I can't predict at this point. CHR. HAITSUKA: Does Saturday, September 19, 2009 look better for everyone? It seems like we have at least three people that can't make it and one other possibly. Does that day look better for you, Mr. Shumway? MR. SHUMWAY: That day is fine. MR. NAHALE -A: Fine for me. MS. OSBORNE: Fine for me. MS. KAWAUCHI: September 19, 2009 is fine for me. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, on September 19, 2009 we could do Hamakua and Kohala. I don't know if there is a preference which one should go first. It seems like a majority of you come in from Hilo. MS. OSBORNE: So let's start from far away and work our way back. CHR. HAITSUKA: You want to start with Kohala and come back this way? MS. JARMAN: How much time are we going to allow for each hearing, Mr. Chair? CHR. HAITSUKA: I was thinking about three hours. I think if we set up at 9:00 a.m. and if nobody shows up we can have an early lunch. MS. JARMAN: How much time do we give each testifier? 16 CHR. HAITSUKA: In our rules we have three minutes. MS. JARMAN: So, if we max out at 100 people, 100 times three is 300 minutes, divided by 60. That would be five hours if we have 100 people. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm hoping we don't have 100 people. MS. JARMAN: I have sat through meetings where we have 100 people. CHR. HAITSUKA: I guess what we could do is do three hours, and then we need some travel time between Waimea and Honoka`a, and then put a little extra time in there just in case the meeting runs over. So, maybe do a 9:00 a.m. and then 2:00 p.m. Although if it finishes early, we will all be waiting around. MS. JARMAN: I guess if we have to, we could postpone or continue the meeting to another date if we actually do have that many people from one of the districts. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is that possible, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, that is possible. CHR. HAITSUKA: That would work. So, we want to start with Kohala on Saturday, September 19, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. and then Hamakua at 1:00 p.m. MR. SHUMWAY: I agree. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, that leaves Kona, Ka`u, and Puna. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, I have a suggestion. What if we held our Commission meeting on September 11, 2009 in Kona, and then did the public hearing before or after, and then allowed Hilo folks to participate from here. Then, we do Hilo and Kona at the same time, but we made the physical presence in Kona. We still get the two for one benefit. If we feel like Hilo needs an extra public hearing, we can always do it after another Commission meeting, since we are already set up. Then we only have Puna and Ka`u left. MR. SHUMWAY: I think that's a good idea. MR. NAHALE -A: We would also be running a Commission meeting in Kona. Picking up on Mr. Shumway's point, the Kona public might want to participate in that process as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: I would be agreeable to that. It saves me one day of driving. Did everybody get that proposal? We would hold the September 11, 2009 meeting in Kona, and then have the public hearing after that meeting. MS. KAWAUCHI: The only thing I would add is that I may not be able to attend. 17 CHR. HAITSUKA: How is everybody else with that schedule? MR. NAHALE -A: I made the suggestion, but I will be on the mainland that week. CHR. HAITSUKA: So you are not going to be here for the September 11, 2009 meeting. MR. NAHALE -A: Yes, but it's still a good idea, even if I'm not going to be there. MS. JARMAN: In theory, I think that's an excellent idea. But, how many people can you get in the Kona office? If we are going to do the videoconferencing from Kona, there is not a lot of room. We are looking at the Kona office there on the screen in the upper left. There is not a lot of room if a lot of people show up. Another alternative -- although I don't know how costly this is - -is when the Council holds their meetings in Kona, they hold it in the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa in a huge room. There is a price for that, I don't know what it would be, but we could potentially do that because they have the videoconferencing capabilities. Levi, how much does that cost? MR. HOOKANO: I'm sorry; I don't have the cost estimate on that. I think that would also require the use of the Out of the Sea Media Productions for that. So there might be extra costs associated with that venue. MS. JARMAN: I think they only do the videotaping, but maybe Karen could check on that when we take a recess. CHR. HAITSUKA: If we held the meeting in Kona, would we have to have some kind of a way to videoconference to Hilo, for the regular meeting? MR. HOOKANO: For the regular meeting, it would probably help, but there is no requirement. We would just have to notice it that way. Our rules say that our regular meetings will be held in Hilo, so we would have to make an exception and notice it that way. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, what we can do is have it somewhere else, we're not going to have the video capabilities, and we can have the Hilo meeting at our next meeting, which will be in October, and finish up with that; although it's kind of close to our October deadline. That would be another alternative, having it somewhere like a cafeteria or even at some other facility. Ms. Jarman, do you want to see first if we can get the Sheraton? MS. JARMAN: Maybe when we take a recess, Karen could check with the County Clerk's office about how that works. We would have to make sure that the Sheraton itself is available. CHR. HAITSUKA: As far as the Ka`u and Puna meetings, we can probably do that all in one day on a Saturday. Maybe Saturday, September 26, 2009. I don't know what everybody's schedule looks like. I think I'm clear. Is everybody going to be around on September 26, 2009? IN MR. KEALHOA: I won't be available. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I have a Friday Court ordered settlement conference, and again, sometimes they carry over to the next day; although rarely. I just have to say that it is possible the Court may order us back on the following Saturday, I cannot tell. CHR. HAITSUKA: You better work hard to settle that case then. MS. KAWAUCHI: I don't know what to say about that. I'm not sure what the judge will require. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, you might not be here, and Joe won't be here. But, it looks like Todd, Susie, and Alapaki will be available. So why don't we look at Puna and Ka`u for Saturday, September 26, 2009, and again, at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. What is easier for everyone? Do you want to start from the farthest, Ka`u first? Ka`u at 9:00 a.m. and Puna at 1:00 p.m. That is kind of a far drive though. MS. JARMAN: That would be at least an hour drive. Actually, it's more than that, it's about 45 minutes from Na`alehu to Volcano, and then it's another 45 minutes to get down to Pahoa. So we might have to start it at 2:00 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, 9:00 a.m. on September 26, 2009 at Ka`u, and 2:00 p.m. at Puna. That leaves Kona re- schedule Hilo. If we're going to do Kona on Friday, September 11, 2009, we will have to Or, if we can do both on the same day, that would be fine. Let's take a break, look into it, and reconvene. We'll take a 10- minute break. RECESS RECONVENE At 2:31 p.m., the Chair called for a 10- minute recess. The meeting was reconvened at 2:45 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, let's reconvene. Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: For our October meeting, would it be possible to combine that October meeting as a geographic meeting as well as a regular Commission meeting? What we could do, is for the September 11, 2009 meeting, have a geographic meeting in Kona and have a regular meeting in Kona. Then, if we still need to have a meeting for Hilo to satisfy the geographic area requirement, we could have the October meeting start with the geographic meeting and have the regular Commission meeting follow. That would take care of those two. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that is one of the considerations. We have Ms. Eoff She was going to let us know the cost and availability of using the Sheraton. 19 MS. EOFF: The Sheraton charge per day is $460. The videoconference --I don't know how much that will cost - -it is done by Out of the Sea Media and we would have to hire them. They bring all the equipment for that and Val didn't know the exact cost, but it's fairly expensive. She wasn't sure if there were any procurement laws we would need to follow before we hired them. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm trying to think if there is another way to do it. The Council goes over to Kona when? MR. HOOKANO: In September, they go to Kona on September 1st and 2nd to have their meetings. CHR. HAITSUKA: I was wondering if we could use the facilities on the same days. MS. EOFF: If their meeting was done early enough. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: I don't think we can predict with any certainty how their meetings are gong to go on those two days. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, we know how much it would cost to rent the room, but we don't know how much it would cost to get the electronic equipment. So, are there any suggestions, discussion on what to do with the Kona meeting? MS. JARMAN: It looks like we're not going to be able to piggy -back it on with another meeting. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, unless we pick a different day, would that work? If we think that's a good idea to save costs, if we pick another day to piggy -back. Would the Council Chambers be available? CHR. HAITSUKA: Which Chambers are you talking about, the Kona? MS. KAWAUCHI: I think so. Our options are the Liquor Commission meeting room, or the Sheraton Keauhou, or I guess the school might be another option. The Council Chambers are at the Keauhou Sheraton, is that what they usually use? MS. EOFF: That is where the Council normally meets. MS. KAWAUCHI: I guess in my mind I thought there was a different meeting room. MS. EOFF: The Kona office is pretty small. Once we set up the tables for the Commissioners, there would be only maybe enough room for eight to ten more people from the public. 20 CHR. HAITSUKA: So, everybody has to go out to Kona one way or another, either on September 11, 2009 or some other time. I don't have a preference, because I live there. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I like Paki's idea of having the meeting in Kona followed by a public hearing. As far as I'm concerned in September and October we should have one in Hilo and one in Kona. We can have the public hearings after our general meeting. We just do one in Hilo and one in Kona. It doesn't matter to me which. CHR. HAITSUKA: I guess we can plan to have the next meeting in Kona, followed by a district meeting. We don't know if we can get the electronic equipment, but we can plan to have the meeting out there on September 11, 2009 regardless of whether we have the equipment. MS. HONMA: It's not absolutely necessary to have the video equipment. It's only to provide that opportunity, it's not a must have. So, as long as we can get a venue, it should be okay. CHR. HAITSUKA: Right. MR. SHUMWAY: Then, my idea would be the next month, the October meeting, we do it here, and then we have our public hearing after it. So, there would be no need to have the videoconference, we do them both with our regular meetings. CHR. HAITSUKA: I would be agreeable to that. Is there any discussion? Let me go over the tentative schedule. On September 11, 2009, we would have our regularly scheduled meeting somewhere in Kona, followed by our Kona public hearing. September 19, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. we would have a public hearing in Kohala, in Waimea to be exact, followed by a meeting at 1:00 p.m. in Hamakua. On September 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. we would have a meeting in Ka`u, followed by a meeting in Puna at 2:00 p.m. I believe Ms. Kawauchi is suggesting that we have the Ka`u meeting in Pahala instead of Na`alehu to save some driving time. I don't have any objections to that. Is there any discussion on the proposed schedule for the public hearings? MS. JARMAN: Then, October 9, 2009 in Hilo. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Hilo would be October 9, 2009. MS. JARMAN: October 9, 2009 is the 2nd Friday in October, so that would be our regularly scheduled meeting. CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct. Is there any more discussion on the proposed schedule for the public hearings? MS. JARMAN: I move that we adopt the proposed schedule laid out by Chairman Haitsuka. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any second? 21 Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the proposed public hearing schedule as set forth by Chair Haitsuka. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, regarding the venues, would the Commission leave it up to the Commission Secretary to arrange for the venues? CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that would be fine. The one change I see here would be if we could go to Pahala instead of Na`alehu. MS. KAWAUCHI: That was something I discussed with Ms. Eoff and I believe she is going to check whether or not the Pahala High School Cafeteria is available on that date. CHR. HAITSUKA: And for the Kona meeting, we'll leave that up to Ms. Eoff also. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Unfinished Business, and we have none. NEW BUSINESS CA -1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY Amends Article VIII, Department of Water Supply, Sections 8 -1 through 8 -3, Hawaii County Charter. Replaces all references to "manager" with "manager -chief engineer." Additionally replaces "chief engineer" with "director of public works" in Section 8 -2. CHR. HAITSUKA: First on the agenda under New Business is Proposed Amendment CA -1 Is there any discussion? Do I have a motion to approve first reading of CA -1? Mr. Kealoha moved to approve CA -1 at first reading. Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. 22 CA -2 DATA SYSTEMS Moves Chapter 2, Data Systems, from Article V, Executive Branch -The Mayor and Staff Agencies, to Article VI, Executive Branch -The Managing Director and Agencies Under the Managing Director, Hawaii County Charter, and appropriately renumbers all affected sections. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -2. Is there any discussion on this proposed amendment? Do I have a motion to approve the first reading of CA -2? Mr. Shumway moved to approve CA -2 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. CA -3 FIRE DEPARTMENT Moves Chapter 4, Hawaii Fire Department, from Article VI, Executive Branch -The Managing Director and Agencies Under the Managing Director, to Article VII, Executive Branch - Departments or Agencies Under Commissions, Hawaii County Charter, and appropriately renumbers all affected sections. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -3. Do I have a motion to approve CA -3 at first reading? Ms. Osborne moved to approve CA -3 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. CA -4 PROPOSALS FROM MICHAEL BEN, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES Amends Sections 3 -6(b), 4 -5(a), 5 -12.3, 6 -8.4, 6 -10.1, 7 -1.2, 7 -1.3, 7 -1.5, 7 -2.5, 7 -3.4, 7 -4.3, 8 -3, 13 -3, 13 -9, Hawaii County Charter, relating to Civil Service Laws, Removal of Certain Administrative Heads Appointed by Boards /Commissions, and Term of Appointments for Merit Appeals Board Members. 23 CHR. HAITSUKA: CA -4 concerns the proposals from Mr. Ben, Director of Human Resources. Is there any discussion on this proposed amendment? Do I have a motion to approve the first reading of CA -4? MS. JARMAN: So moved. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you have a comment? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, I was wondering if the Commission will discuss whether to split it into three separate proposals. I sent a memo making that suggestion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you have a recommendation, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, I made the recommendation that it be divided into three separate proposals because it encompasses basically three different subject matters. One would be the civil service laws section, one would be the removal of certain directors, and the other being the amendments to the merit appeals board membership. I saw those as three distinct questions and I recommend to the Commission that it be divided as such. Mr. Nahale -a moved to approve the proposal by Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano to divide CA -4 into three separate questions. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, now it is divided into three separate proposals, so now you move those three up. CHR. HAITSUKA: We are going to split up this proposed amendments into three separate ones. MR. HOOKANO: CA -4 is now split into three questions. You will still have to approve them at first reading. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, would it be then a question of approval at first reading for CA -4, CA -5, CA -6. MR. HOOKANO: That is probably how they would be re- numbered, so that sounds appropriate to me. 24 CHR. HAITSUKA: Are we going to re- number them right now, or do we have to go back out and then come back in again with the CA -5 and CA -6? MR. HOOKANO: I think they can just be approved now. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to approve CA -4, CA -5 and CA -6 at first reading? Mr. Kealoha moved to approve the first reading of proposed Charter Amendments CA -4, CA -5 and CA -6. Seconded by Ms. Honma and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. ARTICLE XIL• REMOVAL OF ELECTED OFFICERS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is discussion of Article XII, Removal of Elected Officers. Do we have anyone here from the County administration that would like to comment on this particular article? Alright, let's discuss the individual sections. Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.1? No discussion, let's move on to Section 12 -1.2. Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.2? Let's move on to Section 12 -1.3. Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.3? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, can I ask Pat Nakamoto, our Elections Administrator, a question? PAT NAKAMOTO (At this time Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) CHR. HAITSUKA: Can you please state your name. MS. NAKAMOTO: I'm Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. MS. JARMAN: Do you have the provision in front of you, the current Charter provision? MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes. MS. JARMAN: In Section 12 -1.3, it has, "...their name and their signature, residence address, and the date of signing on said petition." Councilwoman Ford had suggested that 25 we change that to be the same as the amendments that were made in the last election in regards to the Initiative and Referendum. Do you have any comment on that? MS. NAKAMOTO: Answering your question based on Section 12 -1.1, Recall, the only thing that I would suggest adding - -and I would need to look back to see if it is in the initiative section - -is date of birth. That would be helpful in verifying or identifying someone as a registered voter. It would just provide us with more information. MS. JARMAN: Brenda had mentioned printing their names, in Section 11- 5(b)(4) it says they, "... shall print their name, which shall be reasonably similar to their name as it appears on the general county register for the County of Hawaii, and add their signature, month and day of their birth date, and last four digits of their social security number on said petition." So, you are comfortable with it this way, but just adding date of birth? MS. NAKAMOTO: The reason I say that is based on that Initiative section - -and you may want to include that in here just for it to be clear - -our procedures and process in verifying signatures are very similar. So, even with the Recall, although it's not stated, it would probably be better to have it stated here in this section. We would be following the same procedures as far as the name. MS. JARMAN: That "reasonably similar" language would help you if we were to put that in? MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes, it would be helpful. The more information we would have in there, and with the last four digits of a Social Security number, would add to being able to positively identify someone as a registered voter. MS. JARMAN: So you know what approximately 25 percent of the total numbers who are registered to vote in the State would be? I mean in the County. MS. NAKAMOTO: No, not off hand, I don't. MS. JARMAN: Ms. Ford recommended that should go from 25 percent to 15 percent. Do you have any opinion on that, in terms of how many signatures it should be? MS. NAKAMOTO: No, I don't have an opinion. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any further questions for Ms. Nakamoto? MS. JARMAN: If she can stay there as we go through some other parts of it, but not on Section 12 -1. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have a comment for Section 12 -1.3. It seems like we were requested to make it consistent with Section 11- 5(b)(4). 26 MS. JARMAN: Correct. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on if we should request an amendment be prepared to amend Section 12 -1.3 to be consistent with Section 11- 5(b)(4). Is there any discussion or recommendations? MS. JARMAN: I think it's a good idea. Ms. Jarman moved to ask Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano to prepare and amendment which would amend Section 12 -1.3 to be consistent with Section 11- 5(b)(4) of the Charter. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, can we have a proposed amendment prepared which would make Section 12 -1.3 consistent with the language used in Section 11- 5(b)(4) of the Charter. MR. HOOKANO: Yes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.4? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, can I ask Ms. Nakamoto a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: In Section 12 -1.4 your office has 30 working days to determine if there are sufficient signatures. Is 30 days long enough for your office? It would either be 25 percent of the total number of the persons registered in the district, if it were for a Council Member, or in the County, if it were a County wide election such as the Mayor. MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes, I think that 30 days is sufficient time for us to verify. Going back to your question on the Initiative, based on the 2008 election, 15 percent would be approximately 10,000 signatures. MS. JARMAN: Is anybody good at math, what would that make 25 percent? 27 MS. NAKAMOTO: Let me give you a little bit more information. In the 2008 general election, there were 67,258 votes cast. So, for the recall it would be - -- MS. OSBORNE: That's how many people voted? MS. NAKAMOTO: The registered voter is closer to 100,000. MS. JARMAN: So 25 percent then is like 25,000. That's a lot of signatures. I have mixed feelings. In some ways recall ought to be a difficult thing to do, and on the other hand 25,000 is a lot of signatures. MS. OSBORNE: Actually that's about half of the number of people who turn out to vote. MS. JARMAN: That's right. MS. KAWAUCHI: The question that I had was, what is the basis for establishing the number. I don't know what the idea is behind 15 percent versus 25 percent. What is that tied to? That's the question that I have, I don't know the answer to that. The number of persons who are registered to vote or qualified to vote will also vary. The number seems more tied to the percentage of voters. What is the basis for the number? MS. JARMAN: I suspect it is really arbitrary. I was just trying to think how difficult or how easy do we, as a matter of policy, want the citizens to be able to recall an elected official. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I don't know if Mr. Hookano would know what the other Counties do with regards to this. MR. HOOKANO: I don't have that information off hand at this time. I could check it out, if you would like. MR. SHUMWAY: If we are going to change the number, I would like to have something to compare it with, some sort of basis to do that on. I agree that it seems like a lot, especially given the number of people who actually vote. Rather than arbitrarily picking out a number, it would be nice to compare it to something. So, if possible, I would like to ask Mr. Hookano to do that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, can you check into what the other counties do as far as the percentage required. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, would you need those numbers right away? CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we want to discuss that at the next meeting? MR. SHUMWAY: How hard is it? MR. HOOKANO: It shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. W MR. SHUMWAY: Can you do it now? MR. HOOKANO: Sure, if you guys don't mind me being absent for a little while. CHR. HAITSUKA: That's fine, if you think you can do it in the next 10 minutes. MR. KAULUKUKUI: One possibility we might consider is not changing the percentage, but changing from registered voters to cast votes, which would give us a smaller number of names actually needed, and be more representative of the people who voted in the last election. MS. JARMAN: That certainly makes some logical sense. Therefore the people who are putting the people into office would be the ones that you draw on to decide whether you recall them from office. And it rewards people for voting, which is nice. MR. NAHALE -A: For me, I haven't seen a big problem with the need for recall, and so it's not an area of the Charter that I want to invest my time into. I think it takes a lot to be an elected official, and so I'm not inclined to make it harder for them. So for me personally, I won't be trying to make it easier to recall elected officials. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any other discussion? MS. KAWAUCHI: My apologies, I have to request to be excused from the meeting today. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi is excused. We still have a quorum, so we can continue. MS. KAWAUCHI: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi is being excused at 3:15 p.m. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, I also would like to add to my comment the fact that the easier we make it the more likely it is that folks go for it. Then, you put a burden on staff, their staff time is taken up. For me, it is kind of a distraction from real business. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. MR. SHUMWAY: I guess that was what I was hoping, that if Mr. Hookano comes back with some figures from the other counties, if they are all 25 percent, then I would say there is good reason not to make any changes. If they are not, then maybe we have something to discuss. CHR. HAITSUKA: Perhaps while we are waiting for him we can address some of the other sections. We stopped at Section 12 -1.4. Is there any further discussion on Section 12 -1.4? How about Section 12 -1.5? I believe we were discussing Section 12 -1.6. 29 MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, on Section 12 -1.5, may I ask Ms. Nakamoto a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: So, if someone were to do a supplemental; they didn't have enough signatures the first time, and they get to supplement the petition, then you only have five days to look at them to see if they are sufficient. What do you think of that deadline? MS. NAKAMOTO: Going back to your earlier question about the 30 days - -the 25 percent or the 15 percent - -now that I think about it, just based on the last petition we verified, the Peaceful Sky petition, I'm not sure exactly how many signatures they needed. But, I know it was less than 10,000 signatures. It was closer to 6,000 or 7,000 signatures, and that took us approximately 20 days to verify. MS. JARMAN: If we were to stick with the 25 percent, then perhaps 45 days would make more sense. How many people were working on it? MS. NAKAMOTO: That was a staff of about 10 or 11. MS. JARMAN: And that was working evenings as well, correct? MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes, evenings and weekends. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are we talking about Section 12 -1.4, the 30 days? MS. JARMAN: Right, she was just saying that perhaps the 30 days wouldn't be enough. MS. NAKAMOTO: In my opinion, in Section 12 -1.5, the five working days would probably need to be increased also. MS. JARMAN: Would be insufficient as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: How many days would you think would be sufficient? MS. NAKAMOTO: Maybe an additional five, maybe ten working days. MS. JARMAN: So, can I move to amend Section 12 -1.5 to read from five working days to ten working days, and instruct Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano to prepare such and amendment? CHR. HAITSUKA: Is that a motion? MS. OSBORNE: Don't we also need to amend Section 12 -1.4 for 45 days, since they said that 30 days wasn't enough? 30 MS. JARMAN: I thought we would wait to see what Levi came back with before amending that. MS. OSBORNE: Oh, okay. CHR. HAITSUKA: So we will do Section 12 -1.5 right now. Ms. Jarman moved to ask Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, to prepare an amendment which would amend Section 12 -1.5 by changing the number of days from five to ten working days for the clerk to verify the sufficiency of supplemental petitions. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Section 12 -1.6, this is the one we were waiting for Mr. Hookano to come back with regarding the 25 percent. MS. JARMAN: That was Section 12 -1.4. Are we on Section 12 -1.6, Mr. Chair? CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct, is there any discussion? MS. JARMAN: Can I ask Ms. Nakamoto another question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Under here you have from between 60 and 90 days from the time a petition to recall is given to the county to have a special recall election. Is that enough time to put together a recall election? In the worst case scenario it would be the Mayor or Prosecuting Attorney, which would be an island -wide election. MS. NAKAMOTO: Just based on our participation in the Special Council Election on Oahu last week, they did an all mail election for their council seat that was vacant. I believe that the dates were the same, but that was an all mail election, and it was just for a council district. At this time, I'm not certain if for a recall election we would be able to do it by mail. I would believe that 60 to 90 days - -if we were to do a precinct election - -it would be very difficult to do it within that time frame. MS. JARMAN: Is there a way to find out if we can do an all mail election for a recall? Would that be State law, or County Code, do you know off hand? 31 MS. NAKAMOTO: I would assume it would be in the County Code, because it would be a County election. MS. JARMAN: Perhaps when Mr. Hookano gets back, we can ask him to look it up for us. CHR. HAITSUKA: And the question for him is whether or not we can have an all mail election? MS. JARMAN: Right, for a recall election. Or, whether is has to be a precinct election with the voting machines. An election by mail is easier and requires less effort on the part of the Elections Office. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to Section 12 -1.7 while we wait for Mr. Hookano. Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.7? Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.8? Is there any discussion on Section 12 -1.9? Is there any discussion on Ms. Ford's recommendation that someone recalled should not seek office for four years? MR. SHUMWAY: What section would that be in? CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't think it is currently in any particular section now, but Ms. Ford recommended that we consider whether or not someone who has been recalled should not seek office for four years. Mr. Hookano, you're back. MR. HOOKANO: Was that ten minutes or less? CHR. HAITSUKA: That was nine minutes. MS. JARMAN: Do you want to answer the question about Brenda's recommendation first, or go back to Mr. Hookano? CHR. HAITSUKA: I'll come back to Brenda's question, maybe everyone can be thinking about that. Mr. Hookano, what did you find? MR. HOOKANO: To recall the Mayor, in Honolulu, it requires ten percent of the registered voters in the last Mayoral election. But, 40 percent of those signatures that are gathered cannot be from one council district. For Council members, in Honolulu, it is ten percent of those registered in the district for the last Council election. For the Prosecuting Attorney, it is the same as for the Mayor, ten percent of the total registered voters in the last Prosecuting Attorney election, and 40 percent cannot be from the same council district. For Maui, it is 20 percent of the voters in the last general election, and for Kauai, it is 20 percent of the registered voters in the last general election. So, we actually have the highest percentage out of all the counties. MR. SHUMWAY: For Honolulu, you said ten percent of registered voters, right? 32 MR. HOOKANO: Correct. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: It seems to me that because we are the highest, we do have something to discuss. I personally think we should have a fairly high bar for recall elections. I think that sometimes they are used by narrow interest groups, and we would want to prevent that, but I think the fact that we have the highest percentage means that perhaps we should consider bringing it down a little bit. I'd like to hear what others think. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: There are two thresholds in the Chapter. One is the number of signatures you need to call the question, and the other is the number of votes you need in the recall election for it to be certified. So, I would favor making that first hurdle a little lower because we still have the second. We need 50 percent of the number of the registered voters in the previous election to vote in the recall in order for the vote to be certified. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I was going to ask Pat what percentage of registered voters are voting in any election. It's generally less than 50 percent, right? So, one of the problems is that if we were to keep that no one would ever be able to be recalled because we never have 50 percent of our registered voters voting, interestingly and sadly. MR. NAHALE -A: For me, I'm more in favor of Mr. Kaulukukui's earlier suggestion of lowering the bar, but making it a percentage of votes cast. One of my concerns is expending more money and time on attempted recalls. Anyone can attempt a recall, and then it requires almost a month of almost a dozen people working on something that may or may not go forward. Even though there is a second threshold to meet, I would rather put the onus on the first threshold so we don't create double work. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: I agree with Alapaki; if we are going to do that, keep it higher on the first threshold. I think we really need to change Section 12 -1.6, because the reality means nobody will ever be recalled. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair, commenting on what was just said; I think if we amend so that it's the percentage of actual votes cast, then we can probably maintain the 50 percent. Because then it is not a matter of 50 percent of registered voters, it's a matter of 50 percent of the people who actually voted. 33 MR. SHUMWAY: If we say 25 percent of the people who voted in the previous election - -in this case she said it would be about 15,000- -that comes out to about 15 percent of the registered voters, which is sort of where we were to begin with. My point is, I would suggest that we consider saying 25 percent of the votes cast in the previous election to be used as the first hurdle. MS. JARMAN: I like that idea, personally. The people who voted are the people who put them in office, so the people who voted should be the ones to remove them from office. It rewards people for voting. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, Mr. Shumway, your suggestion is to amend Section 12 -1.6 to - -and I think this is similar to what Mr. Kaulukukui suggested -- change from number of persons who are registered in that district in the last general election to the votes cast. MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, to votes cast in the previous election. And it would be 25 percent. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Mr. Shumway's proposal? MS. JARMAN: May I ask a clarifying question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes. MS. JARMAN: Was your 25 percent going to be placed in Section 12 -1.6, or going back to Section 12 -1.1 where it says it's 25 percent of the total number who registered in the district. Did you want that to be 25 percent of the total number of persons who voted? MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, that is what I was thinking. It would be in Section 12- 1.1(a) and Section 12- 1.1(b). MS. JARMAN: Section 12- 1.1(a) and (b) would be the Mayor and the Council Members. MR. SHUMWAY: Then Section 12 -1.6 is a separate thing, right? MS. JARMAN: Right, that would then be the 50 percent of the total number of persons who voted in the last election. MR. SHUMWAY: That is what I would suggest. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, the proposal is to change "registered voters" to "votes cast" in both Sections 12 -1.1 and 12 -1.6. MR. SHUMWAY: That's it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on that proposal? MS. JARMAN: I like it. 34 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion? Ms. Jarman moved to ask Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, to prepare an amendment which would amend Section 12- 1.l(a) and 12- 1.l(b) to read 25 percent of the total number of persons who "voted" in the last election, and amend Section 12 -1.6 to less than 50 percent of the people who "voted" in the last election. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: I believe we made a motion while you were not here, Mr. Hookano. We made a motion with respect to Section 12 -1.5. The motion was to change the reference to five working days to ten working days to give the clerk's office sufficient time to do what they need to do. That motion passed. MS. JARMAN: And then, in Section 12 -1.6, I think we were going to ask Mr. Hookano to determine whether or not the County Elections Office could hold an election by mail for a recall. That would then determine if we wanted to change the dates in the Charter or not. CHR. HAITSUKA: Should we give him 11 minutes for that? I think we can address that at the next meeting. In Section 12 -1.4, do we want to revise the 30 day reference for the clerk to determine if a petition contains sufficient signatures to 45 days? I believe that was a request by Ms. Nakamoto. MS. NAKAMOTO: Since Section 12 -1.1 has been changed to persons who voted rather than registered voters, I think that makes a big difference in the amount of signatures the petitioners would need to collect, therefore, there would be less signatures that we would need to verify. CHR. HAITSUKA: Then you should be able to do it within that time if that particular proposal is adopted. MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes, I believe so. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on Article XII? MS. JARMAN: Did you want to bring back up Ms. Ford's suggestion? 35 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Ms. Ford's proposal that anyone who is recalled from office pursuant to Article XII should not seek office for four years? MR. NAHALE -A: I feel like voters have a chance to make the decision on their own. It looks like we are going to be putting several other things up for the ballot, so I would rather not clutter it. I think the voters can handle this one on their own. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. MS. JARMAN: I agree, if voters want to vote back in somebody who is recalled, that's their right. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Let's move on to Chapter 2 Impeachment. Is there any discussion on Section 12 -2.1? While we are discussing this, I will bring up Ms. Ford's recommendation that the terms "malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, and maladministration" should be defined. Any discussion on Ms. Ford's proposal? Ms. Ford also proposed that the requirement that two percent of registered voters sign the verified petition be lowered. I believe that is what she recommended. Is there any discussion on her proposal? Thank you, Ms. Nakamoto. ARTICLE XIII: GENERAL PROVISIONS CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to Article XIII, General Provisions. Is there any discussion on Section 13 -1? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -2? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -3? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -4? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I thought Section 13 -4(g) was interesting. The third sentence says if I'm a member of a board or commission and by employer won't pay me for being on the board, the county will pay me. In fiscal hard times, is that prudent? I don't know how big a problem it is, maybe it rarely occurs. I don't really have any strong feelings on it, but I thought it was interesting. Maybe we could ask the Finance Director if that's a problem. Maybe it's never happened. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think I saw something in the packet that was given to us that mentioned that particular section. Is Section 13 -4(g) something that we would like to ask the Finance Director whether or not it's a problem? MS. JARMAN: Yes, just see if that is a fiscal problem for the County or not. I think it's actually very good for encouraging people who serve on boards and commission who work. But, I was just thinking in fiscal hard times, is that a problem, or not. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm more concerned about it as a legal issue because it says "shall." I don't get compensated to be here so technically, by law, you're supposed to pay me. It just seems kind of off to me. MS. JARMAN: You're right. 36 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on Section 13 -4? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -5? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -6? Any discussion on Section 13 -7? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -8? MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a question on that. It just says that if a successor hasn't been appointed, a department head or the assistant shall continue in office pending such an appointment. My concern is with the word "shall." What if the person didn't want to, are they legally required to? Maybe a lawyer can help with this. What if a person who is a department head under one mayor, then when we had a new mayor wanted to leave? Maybe that's not important, but I don't know what happens in case you have a department head that chooses to leave, then what happens if there is no successor? MS. JARMAN: As an attorney, I don't think the County can force anybody to stay in their job. CHR. HAITSUKA: Probably not. MS. JARMAN: It is interesting language. It would be better to say "may." MR. SHUMWAY: Or say they would be "encouraged" to stay or "continue" or something. CHR. HAITSUKA: I guess I can see why they used it, but I don't think it can be enforced against somebody that doesn't want to stay. I think what would happen in the event that somebody does not want to serve out the remainder of his or her term, is that he or she could resign. Whatever other procedures they have in the Charter or County Code would take effect, as far as who would step up into their place. MR. SHUMWAY: That's a good answer, thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on Section 13 -8? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -9? Any discussion on Section 13 -10? Any discussion on Section 13 -11? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I have a question about that $2,000 fine limit. Is there a legal reason for that, do you know? CHR. HAITSUKA: I do not know. It seems like they are limiting it to misdemeanor, that type of penalty. I don't know if that is by statute. MR. HOOKANO: That is by statute. They limit it to $2,000. This provision in the Charter used to be $1,000, but it was amended to $2,000 to conform to the State law. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any other discussion on Section 13 -11? Any discussion on Section 13 -12? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -13? Any discussion on Section 13 -14? 37 Any discussion on Section 13 -15? Any discussion on Section 13 -16? Any discussion on Section 13 -17? Any discussion on Section 13 -18? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure why the claims have to be filed with the County Clerk. The County Clerk is really the legislative branch's head. When I was the County Clerk, they would all come to us and we would immediately copy them and send them to Corporation Counsel, who are the attorneys for the County. So, somehow it makes more sense that any claims against the County should go to the attorney's office, not to the county clerk's office. CHR. HAITSUKA: Or to the Department of Finance, who has the money. MS. JARMAN: I would like to change that from the office of the county clerk to the office of the corporation counsel, unless corporation counsel has some legal reason why that is not a good idea. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that is strange that it is with the county clerk. So, your suggestion is to have the claims filed with the corporation counsel? MS. JARMAN: Yes, it would make sense to me. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Ms. Jarman's proposal? Do you want to move to amend Section 13 -18 to replace county clerk with corporation counsel? Ms. Jarman moved to ask Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, to prepare an amendment which would amend Section 13 -18 to replace office of the county clerk with office of the corporation counsel. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion Section 13 -19? MS. JARMAN: Something similar to Section 13 -18. The mayor is in charge of publishing the annual report of all agencies and I don't know why it is filed with the county clerk. Maybe it should be filed with the mayor's office. The vast majority of the agencies are under the mayor. The only agency that is not under the mayor is the county clerk's office. So it just seems more appropriate to be with the mayor's office. W CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman, do you want to make a motion with respect to amending Section 13 -19? Ms. Jarman moved to ask Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, to prepare an amendment which would amend Section 13 -19 to have the copy of the annual report filed with the office of the mayor. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Section 13 -20? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, do we want to add that, in addition to publishing the notice on the bulletin board that it should go on whatever the County's website is. I don't know if we want to use some more generic term. Who knows if web site is going to be the word in another ten years. There are many more people now looking at County business on the internet than are walking over to the bulletin board of the Hawaii County Building. Also, it then allows people island wide more notice than just people in Hilo who happen to go by the County Building. So, it would be that next to the last sentence. "... shall be conspicuously posted on the bulletin board and on ......... Maybe Levi could help us come up with some language that would be the equivalent of whatever the internet site is that is maintained by the county. I'm sorry, that is under Section 13- 20(c). CHR. HAITSUKA: Section 13- 20(c). MS. JARMAN: It has to do with notice of special meetings. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Ms. Jarman's proposal? MS. OSBORNE: I would concur with that; it's just a matter of determining the language. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have a question for Ms. Eoff How difficult has it been posting things on the website? MS. EOFF: The County has a website, and Boards and Commissions have a page. You can post the agenda, the minutes and the meeting documents. That is not a problem; that is already ready. In fact, just yesterday we finished creating a new page for the Charter Commission. I will send you the link. We wanted to be a little more user friendly, so rather than just having the generic page that gives you the agenda and the meeting date, we put more information there. It wasn't any problem at all; I provided someone at Data Systems 39 the information. It is not beautiful or fancy, just straight forward. It's a lot easier to find now from the County home page. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, based upon your experience, it should be fairly easy to post these notices on the County's web site. MS. EOFF: At the same time that I send it here for the official posting on the bulletin board, I send it to Data Systems and they post it on our website. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Eoff? Do we want to have a motion to amend Section 13 -20(c) to provide for the posting of notice on the County's website? Ms. Jarman moved to ask Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, to prepare an amendment which would amend 13 -20(c) to provide for the posting of special meeting notices on the County's website as well as on the bulletin board of the Hawaii County Building. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Section 13 -21? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -22? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -23? MS. JARMAN: How are the morals of the community in danger? I thought that was interesting. How would you know? Just a little humor for 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on Section 13 -24? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -25? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -26? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -27? Is there any discussion on Section 13 -28? Alright, that concludes our discussion on Article XIII. RFPORTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Reports. We don't have any reports REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION CHR. HAITSUKA: We do not have any Executive Session items. W ANNOUNCEMENTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Announcements. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 11, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. somewhere in Kona, to be determined. ADJOURNMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Last on our agenda is Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn? There being no further business, at 3:56 p.m., Ms. Jarman moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission 41