The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN CHC 2009-12-18.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION 10th Session Friday, December 18, 2009 County Council Chambers — County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon, everyone. Today is December 18, 2009. The time is approximately 1:40 p.m. and I will call this special meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. We are at the newly renovated County Council Room in the County Building located at 25 Aupuni Street in Hilo. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chair Ms. Daphne Honma, Commissioner (2: 00 p.m) Ms. Casey Jarman, Commissioner Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner (7 :30 p.m) Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner Excused: Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner Also Present: Mr. Bill Takaba, Managing Director Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, Planning Director Ms. Margaret Masunaga, Deputy Planning Director Mr. Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel Mr. Jay Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney Amy Self, Corporation Counsel Mr. Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk Mr. Rodney Oshiro, Deputy County Clerk Ms. Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator Ms. Cori Saiki, Elections Program Specialist Ms. Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor Mr. Levi Hookano, Legal Specialist Ms. Donna Leonard, Council Services Ms. Jeanettte Aiello, Council Committee Services Ms. Kristen Konan, Council Aide (videoconference, Kona) Ms. Manu Hanano Council Aide (videoconference, Waimea) Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda are statements from the public on agenda items. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that public testimony is going to be limited to only items on the agenda. Testimony will be limited to three minutes per each agenda item. I would also like to remind the Commissioners that they will not be allowed to ask questions of the testifiers; but if a Commissioner wants to have someone stay back for discussion on a particular item, let me know and we can ask the testifier to come back up when we discuss that item on the agenda. First, we have Cory Harden. Good afternoon, Ms. Harden. CORY HARDEN (At this time Cory Harden, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HARDEN: Aloha, and thank you all for all your hours of volunteer work. I brought some suggestions, which you also have in writing. I am in support of Communication 106 for reconsideration of CA -18. I support CA -18 for four -year council terms so we get more experienced council members and so their energy isn't taken by campaigns every two years. I would like to see this only if it's combined with amendments on recall and vacancies in office to ensure us with checks and balances. I support Communication 109 for additional public hearings; we need to have more heads working on this. I suggest you replace CA -12 with CA -16, the Initiation of Charter Amendments or Revisions. CA -16 uses a process recently added to the Charter for another action, Initiative and Referendum. That process was developed jointly by citizens, League of Women Voters and Debbie Hecht, and by government, the County Clerk and approved by voters in 2006. I support CA -14, Legislative Auditor, to strengthen the auditing office by allowing them to retain independent legal counsel and adding a "right to audit" clause to all county contracts. Perhaps that might have prevented the "million dollar bulldozer," which the County sold, then rented back for thousands of dollars. We would like to see this combined with CA -34, Budgetary Independence of the Legislative Auditor to further strengthen the auditor. I support CA -20 for Council Standing Committees, to ensure that all Council members will be members of all committees. I support CA -25, Community Development Plans, to strengthen local control. I support CA -26, Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources, so people protecting these resources can say "It's so important, it's in our Charter." Perhaps you would like to add plants and animals. oil I support CA -27, Vacancies in Office, since it gives citizens more say if an elected official dies, resigns, is impeached, or is recalled. Right now a deputy takes over or the Council appoints someone. But with this amendment, if over six months of the term remain, there's a special election by mail. I would like to see it, as I said, combined with a revised CA -7 or CA -35, Recall and CA -18, Four year Council terms. I support CA -29, Prosecuting Attorney Powers. This makes the prosecuting attorney pro- active, not just reactive, allowing them to work on crime prevention, criminal justice reform, and public education, and seek funds to do all this. I support CA -34, Budgetary Independence of the Legislative Auditor. As you know, the County Council holds the purse strings for their office. This year the Council tried to severely cut the legislative auditor's funding. The proposed amendment would follow what many states and counties do; set aside a percentage of their operations and special funds budgets. I support CA -35, Recall. As I said, combine it with other amendments. I suggest these changes, mostly to make things easier for the County Clerk and petitioners. Thank you for your work. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Harden. Next we have Managing Director, Bill Takaba. Good afternoon. I1 2.21: (At this time Bill Takaba, Managing Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. TAKABA: Good afternoon, Chairman and members. At the Charter Commission meeting on November 6, 2009, a letter from William Brilhante from the Corporation Counsel Office, dated October 30, 2009, was discussed. I think that was Communication 81. This letter contained requests for two amendments from the administration. The first amendment was to change the name of the Department of Research and Development to the Department of Economic Development. The second was to eliminate the requirement or the ability for commissioners or board members to get paid in Section 13 -4(g). Although Communication 81 was filed, there was little or no discussion on our second amendment request. Based on the minutes, we believe this may have been an oversight. I hereby request that should the Charter Commission find merit to our proposed amendment to eliminate the last sentence in 13 -4(g), it be made via CA -24 or CA -30, which is on your agenda today. Both of which seek to amend the same section; 13 -4. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Takaba. Next we have Kenny Goodenow, County Clerk. Good afternoon, Mr. Goodenow. KENNETH GOODENOW (At this time Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) 3 MR. GOODENOW: Good afternoon, Chairman Haitsuka and members of the Commission. I will be here later for any specific questions. Election Division head, Pat Nakamoto, is also here to assist you. Just briefly, I wanted to bring to your attention Communication 95 and Communication 112; those refer to CA -12. I won't go into much detail, but really having a residence address is fundamental as far as we are concerned. I think my comments are in writing; so if you have questions, you can ask me, but we do suggest that you add that. I did not provide written testimony on CA -19, but I did want to make a couple of comments. If I may read from the preamble of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which are part of the Hawaii Supreme Court Rules, "As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As an advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations, and explains their practical implications." As a negotiator, a lawyer seeks a resolve advantageous to the client, but consistent with requirements of honesty with others. As an intermediary between clients, a lawyer seeks to reconcile their divergent interests as an advisor. A lot of times, I think we all think of lawyers as advocating a position; the zealous advocate, but there is more than that. I think that might get lost if we go to a system of having a separate lawyer for the Council, beyond, you know what we have right now. We have Mr. Hookano who works on drafting. He really works together with Corporation Counsel. As far as representing the County, it's better to have one attorney, in the sense that it has this reconciling of divergent opinions; that possibility. Also, a lawyer, you know, is really charged with being an officer of the court, and upholding the law. There are times when the interest of the County as an entity may become legally adverse to one or more of its constituent parts, but the Rules of Professional Conduct provide a safeguard for this situation. In reality, I really think that is very rare. I think it is safe to say that the Council has the same legal interests as the County as a whole. Having Corporation Counsel there, who serves both, can sometimes bring the parties together in a good way. I would hate to lose that. I really think Mr. Ashida has done an excellent job, and I think the system works fine now, in my opinion. That is just my comment on CA -19. On CA -20, I include several comments. I think there are some ambiguities that need to be worked out, if you are going to proceed with that proposal. CA -22, I provide substantial comments. I am open to the idea. Our office is open to the concept of using the internet, so I don't want to come off overly negative, as some of my written concerns may indicate. I would ask that if you do adopt this, the effective date is changed because Data Systems is part of the Executive Branch, and we rely on them. Not that Data Systems would sabotage a bill the Mayor didn't like. They shut down the network and oh, we miss the deadline. I don't think that would happen, but because it would have legal significance, I think we would have to get our own server and work with that. My comments about the 4:30 p.m. deadline, I think that's clear enough in my written comments; that is problematic for our office. On CA -27, Communication 113 refers to that. I think the comments are clear on that. A major issue is you can't really use the term, "nomination papers." That is a State law, a State generated procedure, and if you are not going to have an election and you are going to have someone appointed, nomination papers are not really what you want to utilize. I ask that you repair that. My other comments are in Communication 113. CA -33, I refer you to Communication 115, and for CA -35, to Communication 114. This is the only Charter Amendment proposal that I feel we said we actually oppose. The rest we just provide comments. I think if you look at some of the other Charters, it's pretty simple. It says, for recall, if there is more than a year left to serve, you go do the election. They don't go into all of the details here. I would suggest that is a more prudent approach. Let the election experts work on the finer details of that, and not put that in the Charter. My comments are in Communication 114. Pat Nakamoto and I are here and would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Goodenow. Next we have Mr. Kahawaiola'a. Good afternoon, Mr. Kahawaiola'a. PATRICK KAHAWAIOLA'A (At this time Patrick Kahawaiola'a, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. KAHAWAIOLA'A: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Charter Commission. May I just take this opportunity to wish all of you a Mele Kalikimaka and Ha' ole Makahiki Hou. And thank you for the work that you have done over the last ten months, and I would really like to thank your clerk, Karen, who continually, month after month, sends me an agenda. Obviously my appearance here today is because I believe it is getting close to the end, and after reading your paraphrase that testimony will be taken only on items on the agenda, I felt that I needed to find something on the agenda so I could raise my question. Communication 109 is definitely something I will definitely support. I hope that more public hearings are held in communities and or afforded opportunities for Native Hawaiians to continue to make testimony. I believe there is not too much in the Charter that deals with Native Hawaiians. For the last eleven months I raised the question at the very opening of this Commission about the definitions in Section 1 -1 and Section 1 -2, the incorporation of the geographical limitations. The plain language in the Charter says that you have the rights on all the lands in the County, except I need to find out if that included or excluded Hawaiian Homelands. Therefore, I came here, to make sure that this Commission would do diligence in reviewing the Charter for the next ten years, that some serious investigation or language to look into the request that we as Native Hawaiians have made based on the fact that the very first part of your Charter speaks distinctly to the lands and it incorporates - -if I look at it from the standpoint of a Native Hawaiian -- Hawaiian Homelands. It does not exempt Hawaiian Homelands, so I need that clarification before we go any further, because your ordinances and rezoning ordinances and the Hawaii County Code may or may not have some affect on Hawaiian Homelands when it's set aside for the purpose of the Act, which is to rehabilitate Native Hawaiians. 5 With that said, again, I would like to thank all of you for serving this County in whatever capacity you have; I know you guys all have a busy schedule. To several of you, I would like to give my aloha; Commissioner Kealoha and Commissioner Alapaki, and to all of you, mahalo for serving and for serving the Native Hawaiians well. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Kahawaiola'a. Next we have Mr. Daniel Taylor. Good afternoon, Mr. Taylor. DANIEL TAYLOR (At this time Daniel Taylor, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a few minutes to speak to you. With reference to CA -25, I would like to take a few minutes to persuade you of the importance of including the Community Development Plans (CDP) and the Action Committees, to help implement them, and to imbed them into to the County Charter. There are already persuasive reasons why this is important. The Community Development Plans are a link between the communities and the county government. As such, they provide an important communications link whereby community members can translate their desires and wishes to the county government. I prepared a one page statement for you to read, so I don't need to read that to you, but that's the essence of it. I strongly believe that this should be embedded in the County Charter and I strongly encourage you to consider that very seriously. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Next we have Mr. Tim Rees. Good afternoon, Mr. Rees. TIM REES (At this time Tim Rees, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. REES: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Charter Commission members. I echo a lot of sentiment that I am hearing here today. I'm actually very proud of this Charter Commission, that our community was able to be represented by such dedicated folks. My hat's off to all of you; I think you have done an exemplary job. I have just kind of followed your proceedings through bits and pieces through time and again, I just echo the same statement on that. One thing I wanted to thank you for first off, is for actually putting your names on the agenda. I think that's great. I think it's an important part of generating public interest in the matters of whatever body or board or commissions' agenda it is. It helps to generate interest. We like to see how people from our community function in different capacities. On four -year council terms, CA -18, I am pretty much going to echo Ms. Harden's statements earlier, and basically for the same reasons she stated. I think it should be linked with the recall amendment that you have on here also. But, I'm not so set in that. I think that in these times with such fast changing circumstances; economic, political, world, you know everything going on these days, I'm not so much against the two -year terms as I first was. What I have observed over the year at the County Council, I thought two years was A basically too short, but I'm starting to change my opinion on that and see that a two -year cycle can work well in these times. So, I'm not so hard and fast on that one any which way. I didn't sign up for it, but I definitely support Communication 109, additional public hearings. I think that is important. Again, if nothing else, there is a service provided to the community that people see how to properly run meetings. We are asking for people from the community to come forward and do their job responsibility, and with a great civic attitude. CA -14, Legislative Auditor, I support this. I think it is a good amendment. There was an earlier amendment you had here speaking about the change of the name on the Department of Research and Development, and I spoke against taking out the word "research." I think it's important. Almost everything I see in the press these days is that we are trying to implement research and high technology and let's start using technology to get where we got to go. So, I don't like just putting that to economic development. The reason why I bring that up is because here we are continuing to call it the Legislative Auditor, but actually it's not. It's an independent County auditor. The functions are very much auditing executive departments; the management's techniques and the finances of those departments. So, maybe that is something that could be looked into. Again, that's not such an important distinction, but it seems like it may have been overlooked. Office of Council Services, I speak against this. I've heard good arguments from both sides, and again I've heard excellent deliberations from you folks on all of these matters; and the public testimony has been very intelligent. It has adequately represented all the sides that you could look at on this issue. My personal opinion is that I just don't feel that it is actually necessary. I think that the public has a remedy in place right now, which is our ability to come and speak out. If we see something that we feel is improper in Corporation Counsel's representation of council members or legislative representation where they are favoring possibly the administration, we've got every avenue and ability to come and speak openly about that. So, I think that's the proper check and balance already. Also, I would mention there is something along these lines in today's paper. We see in the Tribune Herald that it has been hard to fill the Cost of Government Commission. I appreciated some of Mr. Goodenow's comments earlier on other items and I believe this one, where we are kind of asking you, as you review the Charter, let's try to make sure we don't put things in there that end up costing our government more money in this day and age. I don't know if there is a proper way for me to do that, but, I guess I'm just kind of asking you folks informally to keep an eye on the cost of any proposed changes to the Charter. Council Standing Committees, I just wanted to comment on this. I very much support the importance of council legislative business being handled in committees; really hashed out and hammered out all the difference of opinions. It's good for the public to see where our council members stand on these things. I don't believe in going and tying up the actual council meetings. I think the council meetings should function for last minute things that were overlooked, changes that occurred from when you hammered it all out and everybody 7 had an opportunity to really get down and dirty into the issue and get it done with for the most part. But, I don't know if this should actually be put into the Charter. I think the public voice; our ability to come and speak at council meetings is an adequate and sufficient venue to voice our concerns on this. Also, I have just recently suggested to the Council - -on an issue that they got "hog- tied" in for two hours in the council meeting over setting up an ad -hoc committee to review the budget - -that one more person is a quorum, so why don't you just advertise it as a special meeting of the finance committee and have a five member core group which meets all sunshine law qualifications. Then you can discuss all of the issues openly and you can invite whoever you want from the administration. Instead, they opted for a very restrictive ad -hoc committee type of thing. If this amendment were to require nine members at all committee meetings, I just think that could be restrictive in the future when they need to cut back on costs and expenses. All of these meetings cost money. It may not seem big in the scheme of the entire operating budget, but it all adds up. So, I like the flexibility standpoint. I think the public has an adequate venue to try and get our council members to function as we like through public testimony process. Filing of Council agenda, I agree with the idea of this. I don't quite understand why it's problematic, other than maybe under the current system this 4:30 p.m. deadline might in some instances be problematic for the clerk's in the County. But, I think that there have been bi -weeks where the Council doesn't do anything actively, they have certain periods through the calendar where council business doesn't get conducted on a regular two week schedule like it normally would be. I think they could actually go to an eight day public notification period. That is if you use that down time to get the cycle advanced a little bit more. Now, the problem comes in for the clerks when huge amendments or huge changes are made between a first reading and a second reading. That might be problematic if you went more than eight days of advance notice. But, again, I think there should be flexibility here. I do speak on all of the Charter amendments that speak about openness. I think it is appropriate to give them great consideration and try to do that, again, where it doesn't create a great cost. The current system is not so bad, but for anyone who tries to follow the Council and for Council members, it is somewhat difficult sometimes even on a six day notification to digest what is going on and how your opinion might settle out on the issue and what you might come and say at a Council meeting. If you folks have watched a Council meeting - -I'm sure some of you have - -often times Council members are in the dark about what they are dealing with. So I think anything which further advances the timeline allows not only the general public, but also the Council members to be more aware of what it is they are dealing with. Boards and Commissions, I understand the arguments here, I just see that CA -24 may not be an important enough of an issue in relation to how it is currently and how it is proposed to be changed to be a Charter amendment; I don't know if it's that important. Well, enough said on that. CA -26, I support this all the way; conservation of cultural and natural resources. I agree with the comment that was made earlier by someone on how you don't really want to clutter up the Charter too much. Federal level Constitutional scholars, they look at the States and kind of laugh and giggle and say, man, look at some of these State Constitutions. 0 They are just impossible to even know what is going on anymore because they have just cluttered the heck out it. I'm a Constitutional conservative, in the respect that I think it is possible to put more generic provisions in a Charter that cover the broad spectrum without going into immense detail. On natural and cultural resources, I think it's important to add that in if it's not in there now, so I do support that. The last one here, or last two; I strongly support the office of the Legislative Auditor and the value that office has to our entire community. But, I don't think this amendment is necessary, so I speak against it. I fully understand how there can be political in- fighting on this and how the budget can be drastically restricted, but I think that any competent Legislative Auditor can come and present their case and the community will back them up 100 percent. Also, if you have ever read about finance and auditing, it seems to be a natural area of reason to where an auditor can come and very easily prove the worth of their department being funded properly. There is a lot of pay back when we have a good Legislative Auditor, to our entire system, and they can demonstrate where efficiency can be created. In the recent audit of the Public Works Highway Division, that was a very soft audit. It was criticized by some folks. I've read a lot of audits; if you read through it, it gave legitimate suggestions; it did not point a finger on anybody. It basically just said, these are common procedures followed elsewhere that have common deficiencies in those areas and departments and let's have a look at them and see if they do generate efficiency. I don't think it should be tied to a specific percentage of the operating budget. Recall, I'm going to agree with what Mr. Goodenow said on the recall petition. I remember when Ms. Ford did some kind of Charter Amendment the last go- around. It was so wordy; it was stating that it was going to streamline the process and make it easier for people to understand the recall, but it was, in my opinion, ridiculous. I think it was even longer than the original one in the existing Charter. So, this is going to sound like a paradox coming from me, because I use too many words and I am verbose, but let's tighten up that Charter, let's hit it with the real important language that needs to be in there, leave the details to the County Code and what have you. Thank you very much. I've seen a lot of government committees, and I'm not doing this to seek any favor, but I want to give my tip to the citizens and help expose this to the community, your work, it is exemplary. I hope that at the end of this process, that somebody might do a video clip and ask some of you folks that have the time to go speak to the schools and help educate them about the government process. Great job, and thank you all. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Rees. Let's take someone from Waimea. Do we have someone from Waimea to testify? MS. HANANO: Yes we do. Mr. Chairman we have one testifier here, E. Kalani Flores, and he is representing himself and speaking on CA -18, CA -24, CA -25 and CA -26; all commenting. CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon, Mr. Flores. 9 KALANI FLORES (At this time Kalani Flores came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. FLORES: Aloha Commissioners and Chair. My name is Kalani Flores. I am an instructor at Hawaii Community College. I am here representing myself, and I reside here in Waimea. I don't have any written testimony, and I apologize for that, but I just have a few brief comments that I would like to provide. One is regarding CA -18. I oppose this particular amendment for the following reasons. I believe that changing from a two to a four -year term will lesson the accountability to the public of these elected public officials. I believe that if they are elected every two years, then they have to accountable every two years. It is just like going into a job. When you go into a job, you get on probation for a year or two. If you do a fine job, then you get hired on a permanent basis. I think that is how we should look at it. If our Council members are doing a fine and excellent and satisfactory job, then they will get re- elected for another two years and so forth. I think that giving them four years; that is a four year time period, and a lot of things change and happen and the public will not have the opportunity to make them accountable to the end of the four -year term. So, I believe the existing language in the Charter is more than satisfactory. It still gives a Council member eight total years, if the public chooses to vote them in as such. But, to me, the reason why I oppose CA -18, once again, is that it goes back to accountability; and I believe a two -year term will make our Council members more accountable every two years, and the public has the ability to make the decision whether they should be in that office or not. Moving on the next item is CA -24. CA -24 pertains to Boards and Commissions. I also oppose this particular language; the new proposed language, amendment. Particularly, I oppose the language under Section (b) items (1), (2), and (3). The reason why I oppose (1), (2), and (3) is because they speak to the effect of having the County Council select the members on these commissions and boards as well as having the County Council approving their appointment. I believe the way the system is presently set up, where you have the Mayor push forth a need for appointments and you have the County Council approve it, there is a balance of power in the political structure and process that we have now. So, the Mayor presents the name, and the County Council members approve or disapprove that person. What this particular amendment does is it shifts all the power to just the County Council; so there is no check and balance in the power in the way the system would be set up. I've heard some comments previously that the way it is set up, there is favoritism and so forth perhaps by the Mayor. But, that could go for the Council members as well. Just from a personal experience, I believe the system works right now. Presently I sit on the Public Access Open Space and Natural Resources Commission, and when that commission seat became available, I put my name in just like any other applicant could. I had no affiliation with the Mayor. I had no affiliation with anyone in the administration, I just submitted my name based upon my interest in that particular commission, and the Mayor selected my name. So there was no preferential treatment. There was no preference given to me from the Mayor because of any close association; he just picked my name out of the pool of applicants. Then my application went to the County Council for approval. There was a balance there, because the County Council could have 10 approved or not approved my appointment to that particular commission. So, I believe the system works now. There is a balance in there. I believe shifting everything to the County Council, as is being proposed, takes away that balance that is presently in there. So, once again, that is why I oppose the new language under Section (b), (1), (2), and (3). For CA -24. Under Section (k) of that proposed amendment, I have no opposition to that insertion which pertains to maintaining a website for the board and commission. But, I still oppose Section (b), (1), (2), and (3), of that CA -24. Next, I would like to comment on CA -25, regarding the Community Development Plans. I wholeheartedly support that particular amendment. I have no further comment regarding that. Regarding CA -26, I support the intent of that particular amendment to the Charter. I believe there are some possible language changes that should be considered. One of the language changes that should be considered has to do with the conservation of natural resources. In the present draft, on line four, it says, "... and historic structures, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation..." and it continues on. I think the language seems kind of strange in that is says, "... and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources..." I propose that the language shall perhaps read as such, "... and shall promote the protection of these resources..." It's kind of contrary to what the language and intent. The language presently says for the development. Development has a large context of what development could be, but instead of saying for the "protection" of these resources it goes on to say for the "development and utilization of these resources." So my suggestion or recommendation is to change the language to remove the "development and utilization," and to instead replace it with, "the protection." Also, on the last line of that sentence it says, "All public natural resources are held in trust by the county for the benefit of the people." My recommendation is inserting, "All natural and cultural resources are held in trust by the county for the benefit of the people." That is because if you go back to the first sentence, it makes reference to both natural and cultural resources; however, the last line only makes reference to natural resources. So, my recommendation was to insert the term "cultural" along with "natural." In that same context, perhaps even the title, Conservation of Natural Resources, should have perhaps been also inclusive of the term, Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources. It seems it would be more consistent with the existing language, especially the language in the first sentence. That concludes my testimony for today. In addition to that I would just like to make one last comment that I will submit testimony on CA -15, which is not on today's agenda, but I will submit that for the next upcoming meeting; that pertains to the Public Access Open Space and Natural Resources Commission, which I've been sitting on since it's conception. I would like to thank the Commissioners for their time and effort in this whole process here. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Mr. Flores. Is there anybody else in Waimea to testify? 11 MS. HANANO: No, Mr. Chairman, we have no other testifiers this afternoon. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, let's take a testifier from Kona. MS. KONAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we have one testifier here; Susan Dursin, to comment on CA -12. She is representing the League of Women Voters, Hawaii County. SUSAN DURSIN (At this time Susan Dursin came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. DURSIN: Hello, thank you very much. I am Susan Dursin from Captain Cook. You have my written testimony, I believe. I don't need to reiterate that. The League's position is that CA -16 should replace CA -12. It was very carefully crafted, and solved many of the problems that grew out of the initiative on the 2% for public land. With that, I would like to say, first of all, I get the question about whether the residence address is needed in the verification of signatures. It is not a part of Article XI, on Initiative and Referendum. Initiatives do not depend on any district affiliation, and so, of course, when you register to vote, you need to have your residence address there. However, Hawaii, the Big Island, is almost unique I think in the United States, in terms of people not knowing what their residence address is. There are still some roads that are not well named, or have several names, and people just don't operate that way. They receive mail at their post office, and so in the 2% there were thousands of signatures that were not verified, and that created a great deal of frustration and even a lack of confidence in government. Perhaps not well justified, but in any case, it certainly was there. The work on Article XI was an attempt to eliminate a lot of that frustration. I would certainly suggest to you that you use the language that exists in Article XI. In any case, the social security number is in question; four digits of the social security number being required. People do not have to give that if they don't wish to. This is a voluntary petition so the signature is there to be reasonably similar to their registration and the verification can go forward without having a residence address there. In any case, that process is in place in Article XI, and I would certainly like to see it used, and that would be CA -16 as it is now presented. We did not have positions on any of the other items that are on the agenda today, but I would like to say that we are always very much in favor of clear language and public access. Thank you for all the work that you have done; I know it is very time consuming and difficult. Thank you for your public service. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Dursin. Is there anyone else in Kona? MS. KONAN: No, she was our only testifier today, thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Mr. John Olsen. JOHN OLSEN (At this time John Olsen came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) 12 MR. OLSEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Olsen and members of the Commission. I, too, want to thank you for your service. I know something about what it's like to be on that side of the table; it's a lot of work, and thank you. I'm here today to make comment on CA -25, the CDP (Community Development Plan) process. I have written testimony, however to support Friends of Puna's future testimony on this issue, I believe their comments on this are correct. Of course many of the people involved in this submission also worked with the Steering Committee. As some of you may know, I chaired the Steering Committee for the CDP. I have also known Bobby Jean for a very long time. This is not a question of being right or wrong. In fact, I do concur with her that there is going to be an ongoing need for resources. Planning is not cheap and making the space for the community to be involved is not an easy process. So, we are going to try to strike a balance I think. Friends of Puna's future are correct, we are just going to have to belly up to the fact that it is going to cost some money. As our population expands, I assume it will only become more complex and more expensive. Addressing the issue of the outside consultants; I think that where we were somewhat lucky on our side, with the Puna CDP, the consultant that we had on board tended to be a pretty self - limiting person. He viewed his function there as advising us as to what was a good planning process, as opposed to try to unnecessarily push us in a direction. If I had anything negative to say about it, of course, not being from this island, he did make some mistakes in the maps and in context in other things. But, overall, he got it pretty right, and we were there to see to it that in those places where he missed, we tried to bring him back on board. I'll try to wrap this up. I do strongly concur that on the idea of the entire planning issues particularly where it revolves around receiving current information from the Planning Director and the Planning Department about those submissions that are coming in while we were in the process, that did, on a couple of occasions, leave us with egg in the face when people from the community would come in and tell us about a planning that was moving forward that the Planning Department had not informed us about. I don't think there was anything malicious in there, I just think it was not well defined from the get -go that they should do that. I think that in some instances that was detrimental to our credibility to the public. So, I think that is necessary. Thank you. I'll hang around a bit if anyone wants to discuss it further. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Next we have Margaret Wille. MARGARET WILLE (At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILLE: Thank you for the opportunity to be here and thank you all very much for undertaking this responsibility. I just want to, on a general level, say how important I think this committee is. Keep in mind, whether it's you personally, or others, you meet just once every ten years. I see you all as sort of like the far - sighted entity that gives a little bit bigger perspective to what we all do on a day to day level. I'm going to stand on my testimony on some of these items that I've testified on before, so I'm not going to cover everything that I've covered in the past that is on here. 13 On proposed amendment CA -18, that is whether to change from the two -year to four -year terms. I see that in the abstract that the four -year is great for all the reasons that everyone has said, and you all have said, and yet at the same time I realize that this is the way that it was, and with a great deal of effort the people from this island reduced it to the two years. Maybe that has to do with a sort of a lack of trust in the big picture and accountability. So, I think there are plusses and minuses, and the one thing that I ask is that if you do proceed with this, you really do need to have some kind of transition language in there so that it clarifies that those who are in office now would not be able to extend and get an additional two years in their time in office. I don't see, in reading this how someone who would now be say, two years from ending their eight year time, how that would be addressed. So, to the extent that it is not clear, in terms of legislative drafting, I think it should be clarified. On proposed Charter amendment CA -19, the one for the Office of Council Services, and establishing to separate the counsel person who is representing the County Council versus the administration. I would actually like to see this say that the County Council "shall" establish an Office of Council Services. This is done Maui and in other counties and regions throughout the country. There have been arguments where this may add some additional money, to do this separation. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are adding additional people; it means you are adding some separation between different parties who are the representative. I see that is - -what is that saying - -penny wise and pound foolish. I am an attorney. I know the ethical rules for us, and to me it is unrealistic to think that someone who is on the Mayor's cabinet, as closely aligned to that cabinet, can equally well represent the interests of the legislative branch and the executive branch at the same time. If you all said that this is functioning well, I would say, okay. But it's not, the system is not working. There is an inherent conflict of interest, and I could give you many examples. I don't believe we would have had the Hokulia lawsuit - -which has cost this county, I'm sure in the millions - -had there been someone looking and assisting the County Council when that legislation came forward. Right now, if you look forward, and you do not do this, something like the impact fee legislation; I see the Corporation Counsel has given the advice that I would give the administration, not the advice that I would give the County Council. So, I believe that in the big picture, you would save a lot. You will contribute a lot to the trust and the integrity of the system. You are simply separating the entities. Levi does not have independence from the Corporation Counsel. Moving to proposed Charter amendment CA -20, this is basically memorializing into the Charter creating the standing committees and ensuring that there will be a voice for each district representative on that standing committee. Like others have said, this is where bills get hashed out and the issues come together. It has happened in other counties where these standing committees have basically been gutted by virtue of whatever the majority on the council happen to be, so that there are minority districts that don't even have a voice in those discussions. I feel strongly, after watching what happed this past year with the reorganization legislation. There was a council proposal that came forward, number 202, which would have reduced the number of committees. It would have reduced the number of committees and was basically moving in the direction of cutting out or silencing more of the minority voices. You are not doing anything new here, your are not adding any expense, you are simply making it clear that we all know that wherever we live, the person 14 who represents our district will be present at that base level for the discussions over legislative and public policy. The next one is CA -21, ensuring that there are not conflicts of interest on the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. I see this particularly important in terms of the Planning Commission. The issue here is whether those that are regulated should be the regulators. In other words, should the entities and the issues that are being determined be decided upon by those same persons, or persons related thereto. There have been a number of objections saying that the wording of this proposed ordinance could lead to some, or be interpreted in some very unreasonable ways, so that even people remotely related to an entity that is coming before the Planning Commission to be approved for a certain development. I started looking at this to see how we could eliminate some of those possible misunderstandings, and it just sort of became absurd. This is very typical language that is used around the country. It provides that, "... no one may serve on the planning commission or board of appeals who: (1) receives or has during the previous two years received, a significant portion of the person's income directly or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for approvals from the planning commission..." So it's not talking about someone going in for a building permit or a plumbing permit, and, "... (2) has a fiduciary duty to an entity which has business before the planning commission or board of appeals." This is just being realistic. Certainly, if I was representing someone, and had a fiduciary duty to them, and another entity came in who is in the same situation as they entity I am representing, how could you in good faith represent the community at large, the island at large, when you have that fiduciary duty as part of your job? So, again, I think that this language is fine, and things will not get interpreted in an unrealistic or unreasonable way. And the case law supports that interpretation. The next one is CA -22, and I'm just going to bring up a couple that are similar; CA -22, CA -23, and CA -33. All of these have to do with informing, making for an informed public. I do note that the Chamber of Commerce has indicated opposition here. It may be that this will cost a little bit more, putting something on the web site, or notification. This is really to get notice out to us as individuals or people. It is particularly important on this island since we don't have towns; we only have a county government. It's not like you can hear what is happening in your little town. So it becomes very important, and it has also become more feasible. It's not like this would cost us anything here, or add some great expense. It's a matter of looking at what Karen did for you all as part of her job; just putting out some information and making it available to the public. CA -22 has to do with the Council, and getting notification out by way of the web site, on the internet. It also has a time period within which it should be done. I think that's again in order to provide the public with that information; not to accommodate the administrative offices. It just says that the people you are trying to inform should be informed by whatever time period you give it. CA -23 has to do with requiring notice of board actions that have taken place on the internet, and CA -33 also addresses providing notice of board meetings on the web. I'm taking these three together and encouraging you. On CA -22, I would really like to see it 15 say, on the County website calendar and under the County Council section. I don't know if Karen handed out the handouts that I had, but I just put a copy of the Hawaii County Council calendar of events. This is where the public can go each day and see what is happening. I think it is in the Honolulu Charter, they originally had it under the County web site and now it's been changed to now also include that it be also on the calendar. This is where the public goes; to the calendar. Then you can click on today's meeting, on December 18, 2009, and it would go to the website to that information. So, I would encourage that where there is notice here about meetings; that you add that provision that it would be on this central site. So if you want to see what's happening, you don't have to go to every web site. Again, the big picture here is providing timely information to the public, and obviously I encourage that and that it be done in an effective way. I think CA -23 is saying distributed via electronic media such as the internet. The internet is how people are now - -and increasingly over the next ten years are -- communicating. Next is CA -25, and this is the other one that I submitted some written testimony. I think the key issue of controversy has been the provision in here that asks that the applications for development be provided to the district Action Committee so that they would have the opportunity to provide recommendations to the Planning Director in a timely manner. There have been a number of comments opposing this particular item. I feel strongly about this, from the perspective of a lawyer, and looking at it from the public's point of view. It says, in terms of time, there is the burden that this would cause a lot more delay. If the committees are notified of what development items are coming up, if they want to review them they can; they have to submit their comments within the same time period as all the other agencies that are given the notice. So Public Works gets a copy, Solid Waste gets a copy; it means that one more piece of paper goes out saying this is being reviewed, are you interested. I really feel that all of this should be done on the internet, not handing pieces of paper out. I am just going to read a little bit; I did submit written comments. There are a couple of cases that are ripe on this point; the Leslie case and also the Kelly versus - -which is in the Intermediate Court of Appeals and similar statements were made by the court- -1250 Oceanside Supreme Court Case. In this case, the court took the County to task for giving such short shrift to public input on development applications. In that case, the Supreme Court found against the Planning Department and the Board of Appeals for reading the word "shall" in the subdivision code as discretionary and not as mandatory. I want to read one of the key points that the court made when it went over the deposition of the then Planning Director. That deposition said, to the Planning Director, "Do you find that the public can help you in your department to make better decisions by providing information to the department ?" The Planning Director said, "Yes, very often that is true." And he made a few more comments after that. Then, the question was, "If the public had more information, could it then provide better information to the department making its decisions ?" And the Planning Director said, "Yes, I think generally, yes." You can read my testimony. I just think the more you tell the community and the developers to come together, that we all share this community, we would not end up with lawsuits. You go through that and you're not going to have the lawsuits if something goes to these Action 16 Committees. They are appointed by the Mayor; there is a lot of control. It allows for more open thinking at this level. I think that community participation is important. I would like to see it at that point and not in lawsuits that follow up. I feel strongly about that. One other that I feel very strongly about is CA -26. This has to do with memorializing and codifying a particular provision from our State Constitution and adding in the concern for cultural resources and not just conservation and protection of natural resources. I think this is perhaps the most -- -This doesn't cost any money, this is sort of just like trying to help people to expand their way of thinking about the world and that our world is fragile. We need to protect this environment, especially in Hawaii where the economy is based on the environment, the ecosystems. It's based on the culture; it's all tied together. It's about getting people to think beyond us, and our generation. It's to think about sustainability, community resilience and to be a little bit more far sighted in decision - making. I appreciated the comments that Kalani Flores made. I would suggest, perhaps, making a little bit different change than he suggested, only because I think it's important to keep a little more consistency with the language that is in the Constitution. I think if you change the section heading to something like, "Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources," or, "Protection and Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources." That would reaffirm what is in here, as it says, "The County shall conserve and protect..." To reinforce the concept of protection is what I think he was getting at. He was concerned about the language, "Promote development and utilization of these resources..." And that is in the Constitution. I think that when that provision was being discussed, the point was to read the next part, "...in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self - sufficiency of the county." I like his corrections; I would like to make them. I think there is a reasonable argument to keeping it more consistent with the Constitution. If you could change the section heading and also on the last section, it could be, "...all public natural and cultural resources are held in trust..." To me, this is the one Charter amendment that you are really memorializing something that is important to the Native Hawaiian community. All of their culture really forms the public trust, sustainability concepts, and I think you are bringing home the importance of the host culture in terms of the future direction of our life on this island. Those are the main things I had to say. I'm just going to make a couple of minor comments on others. Again, on CA -30, this is about providing information on boards and commissions and requiring a board web site. To me this seems obvious; I know the Chamber opposes it. I think the Chamber just has to realize they have got people working for them. When something is in your economic interest, you have ways, you find it out; you can take tax deductions. But, if you just want information for the ordinary public person, that has so little public time; they may have two or three jobs. If you can just go on the internet and get the information, that is what is important. This is CA -30, requiring maintaining a web site for each board and commission to provide that information as to what is going on. Just like Karen has set up for you all, that's what it is asking. On CA -28, this is the Department of Civil Defense. I think there are some legal arguments raised against this. I don't necessarily agree with those legal objections, but I think since it's not really being supported, I'm not going to spend the time arguing for it. I do see it as 17 a little bit short sighted. It's really in the area of civil defense, community resilience, and emergency preparedness that there is a great deal of Federal funding. If you just go onto grants.gov and look at what grants are available, that's where you are going to see the money. That's where, say, in terms of the district park Waimea, if we want to have a gymnasium that may be the only way that we get it. By having these sort of political platforms --I mean I really wanted this to be Department of Civil Defense and Community Resilience and use some of the wording - -that where you are getting the money over the next ten years. I don't see the legal problems with having the Department of Civil Defense in the Charter. It may need to be set up a little bit differently. Anyway, that is where the money is; just trying to look at how we can forward our island. When I write grants, it's putting in those things that are in the Charter, that are in the Community Development Plans, and showing that this County and Administration, that these are important policies, gets you way ahead in terms of getting a hold of that money. CA -33 was again, I mentioned before, this is providing electronic notice of meetings. I would encourage this and putting out the web site calendar. The last one I want to mention is CA -31, Department of Agriculture and Energy. I think, again as I said before, what is important here is the emphasis on - -- CHR. HAITSUKA: This is not an agenda item. MS. WILLE: It's not on the agenda, okay. Well, you all know what I think; that is just important that we reaffirm our commitments to research and development and I see that department is really your department, research and development being the far - sighted entity. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Ms. Wille. Let's take a ten - minute break. RECESS: At 2:52 p.m., the Chair called for a 10- minute recess. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 3:05 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: We are going to go back to public testimony. Next we have Barbara Kahn - Langer. Good afternoon Ms. Kahn - Langer. BARBARA KAHN - LANGER (At this time Barbara Kahn - Langer came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. KAHN- LANGER: Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Haitsuka and thank you everybody for every single solitary bit of effort and endeavor you have put out on this commission. Personally, as someone who has served on places like that before, I know the IR work you have done. So, without further ado, I am here representing Friends of Puna's Future. Dear Chairman Haitsuka and Charter Commissioners: The following testimony is from Friends of Puna's future The following is testimony from Friends of Puna's Future (FoPF) on CA -25, the amendment that would make community development plans (CDPs) and their action committees a part of the charter. We would like to respond and offer remedies to the objections raised during your last meeting by Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, the county planning director. I will be speaking to the first of two paragraphs and then following me, Bett Bidleman will speak to the rest of them so we will keep it in the right time frame. 1. The planning director objected to CDPs being required for each judicial district. This objection can be remedied easily by replacing "each judicial district" in the CA -25 text with "each community planning district established by action of the county council." 2. The planning director objected to the requirement that all applications for development of lands within a district be provided by her department for review by the action committees. She provided the charter commission with a lengthy description of all the applications coming through her department, most of which are irrelevant and of no interest to CDP action committees. We agree that providing all those documents would place an unreasonable demand both on the planning department and the action committees. The original intent behind the CA -25 language, to which the planning director objects, was to ensure that action committees have available to them information on new development applications that would affect the implementation of their CDPs, and to be adequately informed so that they can keep their communities informed while helping keep their CDPs on track. Examples of applications that would assist them, amounting to relatively few documents for each community planning district, would be up- zoning change requests, special use permits, new subdivisions, and Shoreline Management Area permits. As action committees are the link between the county planning department and their communities, we support revising the charter language to read: "The planning department will provide action committees information requested by the action committees concerning development applications which may affect implementation of their CDPs. Action committees shall forward any recommendations on applications to the planning director in a timely manner for consideration and review." Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Bidleman BETT BIDLEMAN (At this time Bett Bidleman came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. BIDLEMAN: Aloha Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. As Barbara explained, we are splitting it up, and we know that you have the written testimony before you. 3. The planning director objected to CDPs being put in the charter partly because she said her department would lose "flexibility." This flexibility includes the ability to eliminate CDPs altogether, or to be able to change timelines for their future revisions and 19 implementation. FoPF's view is that a statement from the planning director about "the flexibility to... decide whether you want to have them" is precisely why CDPs and their action committees need to be put in the charter, to protect them from being eliminated by future county administrations and councils. We are asking for stability. We are recommending that CA -25 language requiring that the general plan be augmented once every ten years by CDPs be rephrased to emphasize that each ten -year cycle shall begin with council approval. This language may reassure the planning director that the CDP process remains under the control of the county council. 4. Finally, the planning director objected to the cost of CDPs, referring to the $688,000 spent on the Kona CDP for consulting contracts, and the approximate $3 million in contracts spent during the last three years for CDPs overall. We object as well to this excessive expenditure. The public did not encourage paying three million dollars to outside consultants to rewrite their plans. In fact, many of us in the Puna District objected to language that was added, changed or deleted in our plan, which came not from the public but from the consultant, under the direction of the planning director. If the current planning director would like to save our county money during difficult economic times, we would applaud her for taking a hard look at eliminating outside consultants or at least placing strict limitations on outside consultant fees. Those are our four main points, but when we looked at CA -25, at all of the language - -this is page three and four of the written testimony we gave you - -we are also recommending a couple of other changes. All of these language changes - -some of them are just fixing typos - -but some are just to confirm what the county's role is and what the action committee's role is; it's just to tighten up the language a little bit. You have it before you to look at whenever you review this. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Bidleman. Next we have Debbie Hecht. Good afternoon, Ms. Hecht. DEBBIE HECHT (At this time Debbie Hecht came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HECHT: Good afternoon Chairman Haitsuka and Commissioners. We are all volunteers, so we have taken times from our busy lives to come to Hilo. Thank you for your services representatives of our community. As I was writing the amendment on boards and commissions, I realized that all boards and commissions are appointed to represent the community, as the eyes and ears of the people, to tell the government what we, the people, really want. Most of these amendments - -at least over 90 %- -were proposed by frustrated citizens, because government is falling short on the mark. I respectfully request that during your debate, you give equal time to county staff and to citizens. I drove to Hilo today because during the last meeting I sat in Kona from 1:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and was not asked for an opinion on the 2 %, which ended up to be the '/z % land fund, until after you had voted on the issue. Although the Department of Finance Director was asked repeatedly; and she hopped in and out of your discussions. So, enough said on that, but it was sort of upsetting. 20 I'm only going to comment on the amendments that I have submitted, or have some special knowledge about. On Communication 109, which is from Chairman Haitsuka, proposing additional public hearings, I think that's a great idea. It's important for Commissioners to know what is important to the people of Hawaii County, because I hope you represent us. It is also an important first step in the education of the voters. I proposed to the Executive Board of the League of Women Voters to help with that education once you make your recommendations for ballot measures. On CA -12, the Initiation of Charter Amendments or Revisions, although this is a step in the right direction, you have already passed CA -16, which incorporates these proposed changes. I think - -I'm not entirely sure - -you could probably vote down CA -12 and just keep CA -16, and it will come up for second reading. As to Clerk Goodenow's comments on residents addresses, this was really a surprise to me. I don't think this is necessary. When I worked with the League of Women Voters to make the initiative and referendum, which is now Article XI, we talked to the Clerk, we talked to the Office of Elections, and we came up with a signature verification to be without residence addresses; it was not necessary. If it was necessary, they were already looking at the information on the voter. He and I agreed on that, so it was pretty surprising to me why Kenny would bring this up at this point. On CA -14 and CA -34, the Legislative Auditor, Hawaii County has an incredible resource of an honest, independent, legislative auditor, Colleen Schrandt. This office must be fully independent to conduct meaningful audits; which means that they must be able to hire an independent counsel if necessary, and have a dependable budget source. At the last go- around of budget wrangling - -which I had the great pleasure of sitting through the entire thing -- Donald Ikeda tried to reduce budget for this department significantly. If she doesn't have money to pay staff, she can't do her work. This department needs a certain source of funding, which is proposed as a percentage of the overall county budget. I think this is really important. If you want to look at her department's reports, they are online, and they are really terrific. On CA -24, which is Boards and Commissions, the existing process is that the Mayor nominates people to these boards and commissions and the council approves or disapproves. Now, if the Mayor is in Hilo, he doesn't know people all around the island. He can't really know, in each community, who is actively involved, who is an expert in certain areas. So, my proposal changes this just a little bit. Actually, under the Kim administration, Mayor Kim would ask the Council members for their recommendations, and then he would look them over and do background reports, I assume, and then put it back to the Council for their approval or disapproval. That's what I am recommending. I just think it gives a broader voice to the whole county, and the Council members will know people in their districts much better who are engaged. This amendment also provides for a web site for each board and commission that summarizes their duties, gives bios for the commissioners, and posts agendas. I think, I'm not sure, that you could combine CA -33, CA -30, and CA -24, and it might expedite matters and kind of condense things down. 21 On CA -27, which is Vacancies in Office, you know when we were going through the whole mess with the 2 %, I had at least ten calls from people all over the island like, let's recall these Council members. So, I thought, okay, I'll look at this. It ends up that in order to recall a Council member you need 25% of the registered voters in that district signatures. And, those are verifiable signatures. And, you have to collect those signatures in 40 days. That is impossible. For the Mayor, it's the same thing, but it's county -wide. That totally negates the idea of recall as an accountability and transparency. But, vacancies are also- - after you go through that onerous process, you end up having - -you don't really gain much because in the case of the Mayor, the Managing Director would take over; if a Council member was recalled, or died, or whatever, the Council majority would appoint another member; in the case of the Prosecuting Attorney, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney would take over. So, my proposal to change this part of filling vacancies is that if it's six months or less that these provisions would apply. If it's six months or more, there would be a mail - in election or a ballot by mail. I believe in a representative democracy where elected officials represent their constituents; I think it's very important to allow the people to weigh in once again if there is a vacancy created. So recall provides accountability for elected officials and provides checks and balances for naming a responsive elected official. I've been accused of being Pollyannaish in my views of a representative democracy, but I do believe in that. And I do believe that people should be able to recall an elected official if they are not responding and listening to their constituents. I think it's very important to look at recall and to do that to provide accountability. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and please put some of these on the ballot and let the people decide once again. I think that's the best part about our democracy is to let the people decide. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Hecht. Next we have Monika Mallick. Good afternoon. MONIKA MALLICK (At this time Monika Mallick came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. MALLICK: Good afternoon. I believe that you have our written testimony. I am Monika Mallick with the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee. Dear Charter Commission Members: The Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee has reviewed the proposed Charter amendments and we have the following comments for your consideration, please. Overall, we believe that "house keeping" items that can be delivered through County Council or Administrative rules should be kept out of the County Charter. We oppose CA -12, Initiation of Amendments or Revisions. We support CA -18 Four Year Council Terms. If this is reconsidered because it allows the Council member's time to learn the job, learn to work as a team, and accomplish legislation 22 that would be meaningful to our communities without the interruption of having to campaign every two years. We oppose CA -22, Filing of Council Agenda, as we see no need for change to the current Charter in this area. We oppose CA -24, Boards and Commissions, as we see no need for change to the current Charter in this area. We oppose CA -25, Community Development Plans. Community Development Plans should be kept out of the Charter. We oppose CA -30, Board and Commission Websites; this would add additional mandatory expenses to the County budget. We sincerely thank you for your consideration of our comments. Thank you, and thank you for your service to our community. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Mallick. Next we have Mary Bergier. MARY BERGIER (At this time Mary Bergier came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. BERGIER: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I apologize for not having my written testimony; I will follow up with it in writing. I am the current President of the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce. You have heard the member of our Government Affairs Committee speak on our points that are on your agenda today. I am coming forward just to correct some information that was provided. The Chamber of Commerce is a membership organization. We have one paid employee and so the availability of information to our members is provided for the most part by volunteers on volunteer time. There is not a large budget to provide things, so we get our information the same way everybody else in the public does. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Bergier. Next we have Planning Director Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd. Good afternoon, Ms. Leithead -Todd. BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD -TODD (At this time Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, Planning Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Good afternoon. Due to time constraints, I only did testimony on three of the proposed Charter amendments. Those were the ones I thought were most germane to my department and that were the ones that I wanted to concentrate on at this point. I'm actually working on something that is more global than that, but I wanted to limit it today to those. So, starting with proposed Charter amendment CA -21, regarding disqualification from serving on the Planning Commission or Board of Appeals. Currently, 23 anybody can apply for Planning Commission or Board of Appeals irrespective of their occupation. In fact, the language in the Charter says that your occupation does not disqualify you from serving on one of these boards; nominated by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council. This proposal as drafted restricts anyone who receives a significant portion of their directly or indirectly from a permit holder. And since permits run with the land, even a permit that was applied for and granted many years ago would prohibit current employees or contractors from being considered. As an example, we are going to be going through a series of Special Use permits for Charter Schools. Once they get their permit, they are allowed to conduct business as a Charter School. But because they would hold a Special Use permit, from now until the end of that permit - -which basically would run with the school - -any person who is an employee with that school or who had a fiduciary duty to that school would probably be disqualified. This also means that their spouses would be disqualified for service because the spouse indirectly gets income. Our hotels have SMA (Shoreline Management Area) Permits. Because the employees are therefore getting their income from a hotel which has an SMA permit, then all the employees and all of their spouses are therefore disqualified from service because that permit runs with the land. Even if they got the permit 20 years ago, they are current permit holders, because the permit runs with the land. So, those employees are disqualified. In certain circumstances you would have situations like - -we had the earthquake in 2006 - -if you had a contractor who had been contracted for repairs to the hotel, then under the language of this, it would be open to interpretation, whether the contractor and his employees had directly or indirectly received a significant portion of their income from a permit holder. So, if you had a job with that hotel that lasted all year, then you would get an income from the hotel. Something else people don't realize is an employer like KTA holds permits. They don't necessarily hold a permit for every single outlet, but they have one that is within the shoreline management area so they have to have a Shoreline Management Area permit. That would mean that every KTA employee and their spouses would be disqualified from service. Similarly, we have been issuing bed and breakfast permits; those run with the land. So, anybody operating a bed and breakfast, their employees and their spouses would be disqualified from service. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Leithead -Todd your three minutes are up on that first item. MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Okay, you have the rest of the testimony there. On CA -24, this is the selection process for boards and commissions. Basically, to summarize the testimony, I am opposed to this because it basically replaces the process where you have the Mayor reviewing applications and nominating somebody with individual Council members. In some cases, particularly if the amendment created the - -say if the Action Committees passes -- depending on interpretation, whether a committee is a board or 24 commission created by the Charter, then you would potentially have an individual Council member who would nominate all the members of the Action Committee in a particular planning district. So I think that this is - - -We have something that isn't broken, I don't see any reason to replace it with this proposal. CA -25, which is the CDP Action Committees, the recommendations that were provided earlier by Barbara Kahn - Langer and I'm sorry, I don't have the name of the other woman (Bett Bidleman) ameliorate and make the proposal less objectionable to me. But, I still object to having it in the Charter. It is already in the County Code. I generally don't like enlarging in the Charter more and more boards and commissions, more and more departments and things that basically cost more to run government. My particular objection continues to be some of the language that states that all development related applications would go; even if it is just at the request of the Action Committee. The problem - -- Margaret Wille said that I could just send it out for comment to them like I do to a department head. A department head, or his employees, is not covered by the Sunshine Law in sending the recommendations on an application. They get it, they can process it; they can get it back to me within 30 days. That is the usual timeline. Sometimes even departments don't get it back to me within 30 days. If I have to send it to an Action Committee, the only way that they can comment on it, as an Action Committee, is to have a meeting; because they are covered by the Sunshine Law. Particularly because this is going to be in the Charter, they are covered by all those provisions. So, I have to list all the items going to them, I have to create an agenda. I have to publish that agenda. And they can only take action at that meeting. If they don't have quorum, which is sometimes a problem with some of our boards and commissions, then they are unable to proceed. So, my question is, what happens to those applications? Under both the County Code and State law, there are a number of things that I process that are automatically approved if I don't make an approval or a denial within so many days. If that occurs, what typically happens is it gets approved without any additional conditions. It gets approved without the additional conditions that are brought in by the departments. In fact, that did occur. Because of this rule, somebody actually went to the Planning Commission and because they couldn't get enough votes to approve it, and they couldn't get enough votes to deny it, it was automatically approved with no conditions. This was a cell phone tower. So, I couldn't put anything in about camouflaging or coloring or anything because it was automatically approved as it was applied for and I could not add conditions to it. That is some of what you don't foresee when you process stuff and you add stuff. There are these layers of State and County rules and regulations on when things are processed. I'm deeply concerned about the fact that I'm also going to have furlough days next year that's going to make it even harder for me to meet these timelines. I'm also concerned about the budget because I'm being asked to cut my budget. All of the Action Committees, up until now, have had community liaison officers that we have paid for, we've had a recorder to record the minutes. Yes, I would love to come up with the budget, and I'd love to provide all of those services. But, if I have to do all of those services in- house, and do the Planning Commissions, and appear at the Land Use 25 Commission, and do everything else that my department is asked to do, with just the staff, I don't think I can do it. In the first place, you have got to double or triple my advertising budget which right now didn't have anything in it, that is going to cost me about $76,000 to do advertising this year, if I have to do all of these additional items, and get them noticed. There is also going to be notice requirements to the applicant and the surrounding property owners that will go with all of these applications that go to the Action Committees. So there are costs that aren't necessarily apparent when you look at it in a proposal. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Ms. Leithead -Todd. That concludes our testimony from the public. We are going to take one item on the agenda out of order; this under New Business. NEW BUSINESS (One item taken out of order) COMM. 110: PROPOSAL FOR "HOUSEKEEPING" CHARTER AMENDMENT Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated December 4, 2009, transmitting a proposed "housekeeping" Charter Amendment; and CA -36: "HOUSEKEEPING" AMENDMENTS" Amends various sections of the charter and would do the following: (1) Include proper Hawaiian language diacritical marks; (2) Includes omitted words; (3) Correct spelling errors; (4) Correct grammatical errors; and (5) Correct formatting errors. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -36 and refer it for a second reading? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, the procedure for this, because it has come in after the October deadline, would require a 2/3 rd vote to be considered by the Commission. So, a motion to consider this amendment would require a 2/3 rd vote. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, do I have a motion to consider this amendment? Ms. Jarman moved to consider the amendments transmitted in Comm. 110, and CA -36. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Unanimous, with nine votes. Do I have a motion to approve CA -36 and to forward it to a second reading? 26 Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -36 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, and Osborne APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Mr. Nahale -a moved to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2009 Charter Commission meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, and Osborne. COMMUNICATIONS COMM. 106: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CA -18 Memo from Commissioner Shumway, dated November 17, 2009, requesting reconsideration of CA -18, Four Year Council Terms; and CA -18: FOUR -YEAR COUNCIL TERMS Amends Section 3 -2. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the term of a member of the county council from two years to four years. This amendment would limit the term of councilmembers to two consecutive four -year terms. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I'm sorry I wasn't able to be at the last Charter Commission meeting. It was an interesting and important meeting. I was really surprised, after I returned from Oahu, to find that CA -18 had failed as a result of a four -to -four tie vote. We did get a lot of discussion about it, and a lot of input from the community, both in favor, and against. But, there had not been a lot of discussion among the Commission members. So, I was 27 surprised that it failed, and in part, it was disappointing because three of the four members of the ad -hoc committee that proposed it originally were absent at that meeting. So, after discussing this with Mr. Hookano, I found that if one of the members who voted against CA -18 would be willing to reconsider and offer a motion to reconsider the amendment, we could reconsider it. I am asking one of those members to consider doing that primarily because whether or not this passes, there is clearly a lot of interest in the community on this amendment. We are looking at some other amendments which involve recall, that provide balance for this. I think it is important to have the entire community weigh in on this. I realize this has been up before, and it goes back and forth, but I think that we have received enough input that it merits an amendment to be put on the ballot next year. I guess what I would need is to see if someone would be willing to move to reconsider. CHR. HAITSUKA: The four Commissioners who voted against CA -18 were Mr. Fuertes, who is absent now, Ms. Jarman, Ms. Kawauchi, who is also absent, and Mr. Kaulukukui. Would either Ms. Jarman or Mr. Kaulukukui move to reconsider CA -18, and forward it to second reading? We don't have a motion, so I guess we would move to file Comm. 106. (There was no motion made to reconsider CA -18, therefore it is removed from the agenda) Mr. Kaulukukui moved to file Comm. 106. Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Nahale -a Shumway and Unger. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair. Just to explain the effect of that. Communications get filed anyways; it's just kind of a formality. It expresses the opinion of those who voted. COMM. 107: FORMATION OF AN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated December 9, 2009, recommending the formation of an investigative committee to review all proposed charter amendments approved at first reading. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you want to explain this memo? MR. HOOKANO: There is no motion yet; a motion to file the communication would be appropriate at this time. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to file? W Ms. Jarman moved to file Comm. 107. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. MR. HOOKANO: This is just a formality, Mr. Chairman. It is up to the Commission whether they want to form this committee or not. The reason for it would be to review all the amendments that passed first reading and to see which would work well together to cut down on the number of total proposals and see which ones are related. It is for efficiency and for space on the ballot. CHR. HAITSUKA: What kind of deadlines would this committee be under? Would they have to finish their work before the second reading? MR. HOOKANO: Prior to things being placed on the agenda for second reading, this ad- hoc committee would have to complete its work. The process for forming the ad -hoc committee would be the formation meeting, which would possibly be this one, as well as a reporting meeting, which would be the next meeting, and then a third meeting is where the Commission could act on those recommendations that are proposed by the ad -hoc committee. So, it is a three meeting process. Unless there are special meetings in between, the soonest would be the February meeting when this Commission could act on the proposals. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would like to address Mr. Hookano. What is the alternative if we don't do a committee? Would it be something you could work with the Chairman on to do? What would be the process if this investigative committee decided to combine some of the proposals; would it be considered first reading? MR. HOOKANO: The alternative is, if the Commission so desires, I could work with the Chair on those that would work well together, and bring those back to the Commission for their approval. If this ad -hoc committee does form, their recommendations would have to come back to the Commission for approval as well. If the Commission didn't approve of the recommendations, the amendments would basically be in the format that they appear now. The combined amendments would become second reading amendments, because they have all passed as first reading items. They would be considered as second reading. MR. UNGER: Even it the language changes? Would changing the language of those amendments as part of combining them, would that then be okay to move on to second reading? MR. HOOKANO: The ad -hoc committee wouldn't be able, on its own, change the language of the amendments. They could recommend change of language, but that would still have to come to the Commission for approval. The committee on its own would not be able to change the language by itself. 29 MR. UNGER: But, would it keep it at the second reading level, or would it bring it back? MR. HOOKANO: It would be at the second reading stage as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Honma. MS. HONMA: If they had the alternative of the two of you doing it, would you guys be able to change the language, or is it the same process? MR. HOOKANO: We wouldn't be able to change the language; it would still have to come to the Commission for approval. It is not within our authority to amend something without approval of the entire Commission. MS. HONMA: Okay, so the process is basically the same thing, it's not going to save us time or anything like that if we go that route? MR. HOOKANO: It would save time in that it would not require the three meeting process; it could come back in the January meeting if we completed that work in a timely fashion. MS. HONMA: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I think this process needs to be done; how realistic is it, Mr. Hookano, for you and Mr. Haitsuka to do this? MR. HOOKANO: I think that would depend more on Mr. Haitsuka, as the Chair. I'm available, and he has his regular day job. CHR. HAITSUKA: I could do it. It depends on when we are going to present our findings. If it's going to be near the end of January, it would probably work for me. If it's going to be at the regularly scheduled meeting, which I think is January 8, 2010; that might not work for me. Is there any further discussion? But, I am willing to do it. Are we ready for a vote? The motion to file Comm. 107 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. 30 MR. HOOKANO: So my sense from that discussion is that the Chair and I will work on this. Mr. Chair, if I may interrupt at this time, it's getting near to 4:00 p.m. and there is a scheduled blessing of the building. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, we will take a break. Do you know how long it will last? MR. HOOKANO: It could be up to half an hour. We are not exactly sure how long it will take. They will probably be coming through some of the offices actually to conduct blessings of certain rooms, so I would recommend a recess until the blessing is finished. RECESS: At 3:55 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 4:30 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: Before the break we left off at Communication 108. COMM. 108: SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated December 8, 2009, providing a summary of a presentation to the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce, Government Affairs Committee. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to file this communication? Ms. Jarman moved to file Comm. 108. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you have anything further to add? MR. HOOKANO: No, I think it says it all in the memo. It was a really brief presentation. I'll be giving the same presentation to the League of Women Voters in January. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, I appreciate it. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Did you talk about how attractive and bright we are to the - -- MR. HOOKANO: They only say myself, so that says it all. The motion to file Comm. 108 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. 31 Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. COMM. 109: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS Memo from Chair Haitsuka December 9, 2009, proposing additional public hearings. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to file this communication? Ms. Jarman moved to file Comm. 109. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I'm in favor of additional public hearings. I would be more supportive if the public hearings came after our March 13, 2010 deadline of having a proposed draft moved to the Council; so that our public hearings would be specifically on the proposed amendments that are going to continue to move forward in this process. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm not sure if at that point public input would allow us to amend. Mr. Hookano, do you know if we can still amend after that? MR. HOOKANO: At that point, you would not be able to make any amendments, because that would be after your report goes to the Council. The only amendments that would be made at that point would be any alternative proposals that the Council submits to the Commission; at which point the Commission can accept or reject those alternatives. That would be the only amendments that would be possible at that point. CHR. HAITSUKA: I guess, based on what Mr. Hookano has said, I would be reluctant to put it off. If we go out into the public and they give us testimony, we probably would want to be able to use that testimony to be able to amend any proposed amendments that we have on the table, rather than to just let them comment on what we have already decided at that point. Is there any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: If we vote to file, can somebody still make a motion for additional public hearings? How does that work? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: I would say it could still be noted that because of a change of circumstances, things might happen later that would prompt somebody to feel the need 32 that at this point in time more public hearings would be necessary. So, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible at a later time. MS. JARMAN: I mean today, could you? Because all we are doing is filing the communication. There hasn't been a motion. If there is going to be a motion made to have additional public hearings, does that have to be made before the vote on the filing? MR. HOOKANO: I'm of the opinion that it could happen at a later time since during the time of discussion on any agenda items, somebody can move for a public hearing on items, so I don't see a problem with that. MS. JARMAN: I actually believe that the more public input the better, but we had so few people come to the public hearings; and it's an expensive proposition, and it takes up a lot of time. Do you think we would get more people? I also think that one of the things that we did was that we heard what said to us by the people who did attend our hearings, and I think almost everything that was proposed, we actually have put on our agenda for people, because they needed a sponsor for amendments that were proposed by the public. So, I don't know, if we will get enough public to make it worth the expense and time, I guess is my question. CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't know if we will have an increased attendance at the next round, but I think what we are doing seems to be getting out a lot more, based upon people who are interested in the process; they have their own means of getting it out. I think the issues we are facing are stirring up some controversy, and there are people who want to speak on it. Some calls have been referred to me and some people have found my name in the phone book and have called me and talked to me about some of the issues. So, I think there are people out there who want to have their say on some of these issues. For those people, those are who the meetings would be important for. Maybe some of the other people involved in this process might be able to help in getting some attendance. MS. HONMA: Do we have to go to all six districts the second time around? CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't think there is a requirement at this point, since we have fulfilled the minimum requirement of going out to all six districts at least once during our term. MS. HONMA: So, we could just maybe do one out in Kona and one someplace else; and combine a couple of districts together. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think it's up to us to decide at this point what districts we want to go out to. This is something that is on the outside of what the minimum was, so if we want to eliminate some of the districts, I think we can at this point. My proposal was to go out to - -have one in Hilo, one in Kona, one in Ka`u and one in Kohala -- different districts. Where in those districts, can still be decided; but I thought that those four were probably the ones, if any, we should go to. I think the people in Puna can come to Hilo; and when we went out to Honoka`a, nobody showed up. So, if there is anyone in Honoka` a who is 33 interested, they can go to Waimea, or if we go up to North Kohala, maybe to North Kohala. I think a minimum of at least two, maybe Kona, perhaps out to Kohala and to Ka`u. Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I have some concerns. Our timeline is real tight. We have to have a draft ready in a couple of months. I feel like we have actually spent probably 80% of our time with the public; hearing testimony and going out to public hearings. And we have done very little deliberation amongst this body. For example, the four -year council terms; we passed it after first reading with very little discussion. On second reading it was voted down. We heard more from the public than we did from our peers about that issue. I would rather have us get more into deep deliberation about what is already on the agenda. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I sort of agree. I would be willing to support maybe a couple more public hearings; perhaps one in Kona and one in maybe Waimea or Ka`u. But, given the poor attendance at the original ones, and the fact that we have heard from a lot of the same people several times, I'm not so sure that we would get that much more input. I agree with Alapaki that we should be spending more time now, getting concrete, coherent proposals for the March 31, 2010 deadline. If we could shrink it, I would support it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: If I were to shrink it, I wouldn't go to Hilo or Kona because we are in Hilo; and we go to Kona via videoconference. So the places we need to go then, I think would be like Ka`u, because it would be very difficult for those people to attend any of the meetings. So, if I were to do it, I would do it in the most remote places, where people would have the most difficulty getting to our meetings. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think that makes sense. My comment on the first set of hearings is that the proposals that we had didn't seem to have very much controversy in the first round. This second round has a lot of controversial issues. So that is the difference between the first and the second round. Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: We also haven't gotten a lot of written testimony either. So, to me, I think if we had gotten a lot of written testimony, I would be more inclined to go out too, but we also haven't gotten a lot of written testimony. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we actually have received a lot of written testimony. Last meeting we had a folder about that thick. It was all basically the same, coming off of a print out from a web site or some kind of email, but we did receive a lot of written testimony; it was just all in the same form. Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I guess on that note, for me, I don't know that I'm going to learn anything more, live, that I don't already know from the written testimony. I'm all for public hearings, but we have a deadline, we have limited resources, and I think that the 34 work we have to do as this body, is to start deliberating these issues. For example, if we want to try to get some experts here to give us more information and feedback on proposals; if we want to start investigating what other Charters look like; to me that would be a better use of our time right now. I can't anticipate going out to Ka`u and hearing something that I haven't already heard, or I cannot get from a letter or a phone call. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, is there any further discussion? Let's vote. The motion to file Comm. 109 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. UNFINISHED BUSINESS FIRST READING OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTER AMENDMENTS: CA -12: INITIATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS Amends Section 15 -1. Changes the information that needs to be provided to the county to verify the identity of persons signing a petition for a charter amendment so that the office of elections may easily verify signatures; and change the requirement of the number of signatures necessary from 20% of the registered voters to 20% of the votes cast in the last general election. This proposal also increases the amount of time the office of the county clerk would have to verify the signatures on the petition from twenty working days to thirty working days. Postponed: October 9, 2009 Postponed: November 6, 2009 Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -12 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Could Pat Nakamoto come forward. PAT NAKAMOTO AND KENNETH GOODENOW (At this time Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator, and Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) CHR. HAITSUKA: Please identity yourselves. 35 MS. NAKAMOTO: I'm Pat Nakamoto, I am the Elections Program Administrator for the County of Hawaii. MR. GOODENOW: Ken Goodenow, County Clerk. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. MS. JARMAN: Well, we did have this discussion, as Ms. Hecht said, when we dealt with the Initiative and Referendum, but I notice that the arguments made by Mr. Goodenow are a little bit different than were made when we did the Initiative and Referendum in terms of the need to have the residence address. So - -- MS. NAKAMOTO: I wanted to address that. My recollection - -after hearing the testimony, I went back and I talked with the staff about when we were working on the Initiative and Referendum changes, and we did have discussion about the residence address; and our office position - -was that it was a policy decision to be made and not really our decision; but we could have opened the process, and make it easy and convenient, with questions on the ballot. Or, we could have kept it the way it was with residence addresses, where we could have been more certain that the person was a properly registered voter. As far as that, that's what our office position was, and recently, when we looked at the Charter, we were quite surprised to see that it had been changed. We were not aware that when it went to the Council; and the Council voted to change that. We were quite surprised. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: Can I ask another question? If we change it; if we put back in here the residence address, and we don't have it in the Initiative and Referendum, is that a problem? MR. GOODENOW: As far as I'm concerned, I don't think that would be a problem. Clearly, if someone goes to the trouble to form a committee, they would know what the requirements are, and the petition form would be clear. I think that would go a long way to alleviating my concerns; if residence address is put back in. My other comment about the Social Security number; that is what it is. But, to me - -and even my supplemental comment about the use of total ballots cast - -the most important thing would be the residence address. MS. NAKAMOTO: For our office, it has always been the residence address would provide us the information we needed to be sure that someone is properly registered. MR. GOODENOW: I think it would be consistent with the State law and the other requirements. I mean, if you go to a polling place on Election Day, and they show you your address, and if you say it isn't, then you have to fill out a re- registration form. I think that is the intent of the law; that you are a resident as well as being registered. 36 MS. JARMAN: So, if I move from the current address to another address, am I still a qualified elector? MR. GOODENOW: Not if you - - -For instance, let's say you move to Honolulu, then certainly - -- MS. JARMAN: Let's say within the County. Let's say I moved from Volcano to Hilo. MR. GOODENOW: That's a good point. Certainly, this is different from Recall where you really need a residence address, because if you move from one Council District to another, you wouldn't be qualified in the first district. I think that is arguable, but the requirement in the State law is still that you have to verify that you are a resident where you are registered. In your case, let's say you are registered here, but you also live in Honolulu, and you fly back and forth; you kind of have shared residences. You may consider the other address your residence. You wouldn't be qualified in that case. MS. JARMAN: I can really see it in the Recall, and I'm just less convinced in this instance. MS. NAKAMOTO: In the example that you just gave, you would be considered a registered voter. You wouldn't be considered a properly registered voter. If you showed up at the polling place on Election Day with your first address - -for example you showed up at that polling place - -you would not be allowed to vote there. You would need to re- register, fill out a voter registration affidavit, and you would have to take a copy to your new polling place before they would allow you to vote at that new polling place. MR. NAHALE -A: Point of clarification, Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: It sounds like we are talking about a possible amendment. So, if we are, I would rather us make the amendment, so we can see if there is a second and - -- MS. JARMAN: Good point. Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -12 by adding the requirement of including residence address as provided by the County Clerk in Comm. 95. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. 37 Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, CA -12 has been amended to include residence address. We weren't specific as to where we were going to include it. Mr. Hookano, do we need to redo that motion? MR. HOOKANO: No, residence address only appears once. CHR. HAITSUKA: As far as where in the new language we are going to put that residence address? MR. HOOKANO: I think for clarity, for the record, that would be appropriate. CHR. HAITSUKA: To redo the motion? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, technically, under procedure, you need a motion to reconsider that amendment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have motion to reconsider that proposed amendment by putting the word residence address after the word County of Hawaii in CA -12? Mr. Kaulukuki moved to reconsider CA -12. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, so now the motion is being reconsidered; so now a motion has to be made for where it's going to be placed. Mr. Kaulukukui moved to amend CA -12 by placing the term, residence address, after the word County of Hawaii. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. MS. JARMAN: Can I ask Ms. Hecht a question? Could you explain why - -so we can hear both sides - -you believe residence addresses should not be required, so we all can hear that. W MS. HECHT: When I was asked, along with the League of Women Voters, to look at Initiative and Referendum, which is Article XI of the Charter, it was mostly because the 2% was such a disaster. I forget the percentage, but most of the signatures were invalidated because the person signing had left off either the year, which was '06; or they left off Place, Avenue, or Street. It was amazing, just walking around getting signatures, how many people did not know their residence address. So, if the purpose of these petitions is to qualify to get it on the ballot, we felt that you shouldn't invalidate people; you should try to qualify people to get their signatures so that you would have enough people to put it on the ballot. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. Pat, do you have any response to that? MS. NAKAMOTO: As far as verifying signatures on the petition, our office used the Charter and the information that the Charter required to be on a petition form as information that was necessary for people signing the petition to complete and put that information on the form. Because that information was in the Charter, that's the information we used to verify whether someone was qualified or not. MR. GOODENOW: If I may just add a comment; two comments. One is, the 2% amendments did make it to the ballot. The second comment is, even though the Clerk initially certified it as insufficient, the Council overruled that opinion and came out and said it was sufficient. The point is, the system worked. As far as I'm concerned, the residence address did not make a difference. And, Pat can correct me if I'm wrong; there really were not that many instances where there was confusion; or like the name was illegible and we couldn't - - -It was not as common as - -- MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, on another point, can I ask -- because the assertion was that you invalidated names because the date was left off, or, I forget what the other one was but it seemed like manini stuff- -can you speak a little further on where you drew the line, and how that worked. MS. NAKAMOTO: Initially when we checked the petition, we were following the Charter. Then, we went through several phases. Then we got to the point where we were told by the County Clerk at that time to accept the date. If the date was missing, we would accept that information; although that information was required by the Charter to be on that petition form. If a name was reasonably similar, we went back and we re- checked the petition, and we qualified all of those people. You know, if Ms. Hecht had just stated that it was a nightmare for them doing the 2% petition and getting signatures - -- We also verified the Peaceful Sky petition, and it wasn't that difficult; although they didn't have enough signatures and they chose not to turn in a supplemental petition with additional signatures. Like Mr. Goodenow just mentioned, that petition, although they didn't have enough signatures on the petition, the Council also put that question on the ballot. 39 MR. NAHALE -A: And a quick follow -up, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goodenow, what would you see as a consequence of validating the names of people who were not actual voters? What is the potential consequence of that? MR. GOODENOW: Well, I think there are two comments. One is to ensure the integrity of the system; and what that means in practical terms, I guess maybe it is hard to judge. I want to apologize to the person back there who said, "You are lobbying." You know, as the Clerk, maybe I need to be careful that I don't come across as lobbying. My attitude is, if you want to make it harder or easier, adjust the figures; I have no comment on that. As far as making sure that someone is a qualified voter, I think that's integral to the election process, so we can tell people, "I know for a fact that these people signing this ballot, are qualified voters." Without that information, it is likely that most of them are, but I can't really swear that we know they are; and I think that's important. MR. NAHALE -A: So, let's say that on a particular issue I wanted to argue that these are not qualified voters; I'm going to question the process and the job that you guys did and per the court order, you have got to turn over the records, and I actually prove that you have qualified names that you shouldn't have. MR. GOODENOW: I am an attorney, but I'd prefer to say I'd have to read the case law on whether something would be invalidated or not. My feeling is if it went to the voters and the voters passed it, it might not be invalidated. But, again, I would need more time to research that. MR. NAHALE -A: I guess my issue is not would it pass or not, but I agree that there has to be integrity within the system. So, one of the things I have a hard time with is that it seems that the accusation is that you guys purposely want to make it harder. And it seems to me that the intention is to follow the law; to make sure that someone who signs is actually a voter. That is not always an easy process. MR. GOODENOW: Right, and I appreciate that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? So we have a motion pending; and the motion is to add, residence address after the County of Hawaii to proposed CA -12. So are we ready to vote on that? The motion to amend CA -12 by placing the term, residence address, after the word County of Hawaii was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. R CHR. HAITSUKA: So now we are on the original motion to approve CA -12 and to move it forward to a second reading. Is there any further discussion on that? The motion to approve CA -12 as amended at first reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CA -14: LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR Amends Sections 3 -18, 10 -13, and 13 -13. Amendment to Section 3 -18 would give the legislative auditor the authority to retain independent legal counsel. Amendment to Section 10 -13 would change the title of the section from "Post - Audit" to "Audit of Accounts and Financial Transactions," define performance criteria, set the scope of the audit and distribution requirements, and provides that the finance director "may" rather than "shall" cause an audit of respective accounts when an administrative officer leaves office. Amendment to Section 13 -13 would require all county contracts to have a "right to audit" clause. Postponed: November 6, 200 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -14 and to forward it to a second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -14 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: Yes, I have a question. With the new language that is proposed, could we not say, "...the authority may retain independent legal counsel." It seems like we are almost forcing their hand to go ahead and get counsel, when it might not be necessary. I like the idea that they can independently go out and get counsel, I just don't think it should be mandatory, and it kind of seems like that is the way the language is, is that the authority to retain legal counsel. So, I'm for it, I would just like to suggest that they have the right to go get legal counsel. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Schrandt, do you have any comment on that? 41 COLLEEN SCHRANDT (At this time Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. SCHRANDT: From our perspective, again, we should have the right to do it should it be necessary, but it is not something that we want to be put into a position that we have to go outside. It should be only for cases where the topic that we are looking at may create a conflict of interest and we want to actually get an independent opinion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Jarman, do you have a comment? MS. JARMAN: So, is it your position that the way it is currently written is basically what Mr. Unger suggested, so you don't have to do it, but it gives you the authority to do it if you want to? MS. SCHRANDT: My understanding is that is what the current wording means, but if I'm incorrect the intent was to allow us to be able to do that if necessary, but not to force our hand in doing it. MS. JARMAN: That is what the language seems to me to say, that they wouldn't have to. But I think that's a good point, that it wouldn't require you to but it would give you the opportunity if you needed to. That's how I read it. Do you read it differently Mr. Unger? I wanted to word it that way because that's what how I want it to be interpreted. MR. UNGER: With the wording that I'm suggesting, it just takes out any doubt as to what the intent is. What I'm suggesting is not that onerous, but if we are happy with the way it reads; that's fine; if no one else seems to think it's an issue, I guess I'm good with leaving as is. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I wanted to ask you about -- -Just in general, I'm not in favor of making the Charter an onerous document. I would like it to be lighter and cleaner and leave most of those things to the Code. I will be proposing an amendment to eliminate item (e) under Section 13 -13, for the concerns I've raised in previous meetings. I wanted to ask you, specifically, in Section 10 -13, where this addition, "The scope of the audit shall be in accordance with the terms of a written contract..." I think that's great language, I just believe that is stuff that should be in the Code. Why does it have to be in the Charter, from your perspective? MS. SCHRANDT: I think that goes back to why is a lot of that paragraph in the Charter to begin with? You seem to be addressing those types of issues surrounding the external audit, I think it is proper to state that it is going to be in accordance with an actual written contract. If the rest of that paragraph is not necessary or appropriate for the Charter, then that probably changes the need to have the sentence that it's going to be in accordance with a written contract, or with the recognized government auditing standards. That language already exists, so all we are trying to do is clarify and clean it up. W MR. NAHALE -A: So, not being familiar with the Code; is there a section of the County Code where this could be covered in that document? MS. SCHRANDT: There isn't currently, because it is covered in this section of the Charter. Again, I'm not going to make the call as to whether or not that is appropriate, it just is what it is. That is where it exists currently, so we are trying to make it as clear as possible. Can I make a comment to Mr. Unger's point? My concern is if Mr. Unger interprets that wording that way, that concerns me because we don't have a budget to have to go out and hire legal counsel for everything. So, I guess I have a concern, since you brought that up. I don't want someone else to interpret it that way and be forced into hiring counsel for everything. We just don't have that kind of a budget. I don't know if we need to get a formal interpretation of what that wording means, but at this point, I guess I have a concern. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Isn't that a legal question? We do have a few lawyers in the room. MR. HOOKANO: I actually missed that part of the discussion; I was looking up something in the State law at that time. But, the ultimate decider of what the interpretation of that is, would be the courts. MS. SCHRANDT: But that would be a very expensive way to make that decision. Is there any other way to clarify that before it possibly gets put on the ballot? MS. JARMAN: I think, from a legal standpoint, it gives you the authority to retain; it doesn't require you to retain. It gives you the authority, so I wouldn't be that concerned, myself. Can I ask another question of Mr. Nahale -a? In terms of Section 10 -13; what part of it would you like to have stricken? Starting from the scope of the audit, to the end of that paragraph; is that what you are thinking of? MR. NAHALE -A: Yes, and again, I don't think it's bad language, I just think that if we are going to start governing via the Charter; it's a slippery slope. I realize the section is in there already, but basically we could improve virtually every section of the Charter. I've been beating this drum from the beginning. I don't think it is our role to govern and manage from the Charter. People have to do a lot of work to have that right; they go get elected, they do a lot of work to have that right. Tome, I think our job is to set the infrastructure in place, the theme from which people can govern. For me, it's not that it is bad language, but for everything we consider, I will be making this argument and saying, "Is it really necessary in the Charter ?" If it isn't, we should leave it to the folks who got elected to govern. They have an accountability built in process. MS. JARMAN: I don't object to what you are suggesting, but how about -" ... in accordance with recognized government auditing standards. " -- requiring it to be done in accordance to that. Would you leave that in, or would you want that to be taken tout? 43 MR. NAHALE -A: I would take it out, because then this is clear that what the Charter amendment proposal is; that the auditor should have the authority to retain legal counsel. Now, that is an infrastructure set up, to me. MS. JARMAN: I'm sorry; I'm back on Section 10 -13. MR. NAHALE -A: Yes, I'm saying I would take that out as well, so this Charter amendment was very straight forward; we could communicate it to the public in a very clear way. This Charter amendment, if you vote for it, it's simple; it just gives the auditor the authority to retain legal counsel. If you take everything else out, that is all this is. MS. JARMAN: Oh, so you would take everything out except for that. MR. NAHALE -A: Yes. Otherwise- -and we have heard this from several people - -you go into the Charter booth, and there is all this stuff, you read the language, you don't know what it really means, it's really governing; we are managing, we are trying to do the work of the elected officials. I don't know the Code to depth. Maybe there is some reason why this isn't appropriate in the Code; but I haven't heard any compelling reason why it isn't. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. MR. NAHALE -A: I would like to move to amend CA -14 to remove all changes except item (5) under Section 1 (f) and also leaving in the word "may" under Section 10 -13. Mr. Nahale -a moved to amend CA -14 to remove all changes except to give the auditor the authority to retain independent legal counsel in Section l(f)(5) and changing the word "shall" to "may" in Section 10 -13. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any questions? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: I still have further questions. Section 13- 13(e); is that something that you suggest? Is that language something that you requested to help you do your j ob better? MS. SCHRANDT: Yes, again, I had a discussion about two meetings ago about that topic. The reason we brought that forward was because one of the audits that we did. Even though HRS (Hawaii Revised Statutes) and HAR (Hawai`i Administrative Rules) have some standard clauses in there about the right to audit, and right to access facilities that are part of a program supported in part or in whole by government funds; we did run into a situation where a vendor for a County contractor refused to allow us access to their facilities. They interpreted an audit as being simply a review of records; you tell us what records, and we'll bring them to your office. And that is all the cooperation you get. We felt, at the time, that it was clear that we had the right to audit, including the right to inspect the process that they were contracted to perform. But yet, we were not permitted to do that in the end. So, that is what this is looking for. I think the discussion prior .. was, is the Charter the place to do this? Maybe it is not the proper place, and if it's addressed in this way, I don't have any problem with that. But, I do think that it is important for us to perform our job that we are capable and have the authority to make sure the public funds are being expended properly; and for what they are contracted to be spent for. That does require more than just looking at records provided. MR. LINGER: I think that because we do already have this section in there; Section 13 -13, specifically addressing contracts, and if this is something you think you really need to have the authority to do, I think this would probably, at this point, be the simplest place to get this accomplished; as opposed to going back and trying to get an ordinance passed. I agree with Alapaki, but in this instance, because we have a whole section on contracts, where you get fairly specific already; I'm in favor of leaving Section (e) in there. MS. SCHRANDT: If I can add; there was also discussion prior about different types of contracts. Obviously, if the contract is to provide 1000 cases of copy paper, the argument was it's not really appropriate to have a right to audit clause. Just to assure you, we would never audit a contract like that. It would not be proper for us to even be looking at it. So even though I agree there are types of contracts where it might not be important, that to me is not an issue because it's nothing they are going to commit as far as in a risk assessment to flag us that yes, we should go and audit that contract. Those would be for goods and services, or construction. MR. NAHALE -A: I think the point the administration made was that if we are going to talk about the simplest way to do this, we should just start putting it in the contracts, tomorrow. I think they expressed that they are willing to do that as best practice. They expressed some concerns as to the scope of the contracts; then the bids might go up if people have to be worried about getting audited for no reason. It kind of scares folks away if there is more legal language in the contracts. I think there were some administrative concerns. For me, the Charter amendment is not the simplest way to do something; it is probably the hardest way to do something. MR. LINGER: What is your comment on that? What would prevent you from just adding the language to your existing contracts? MS. SCHRANDT: It may not be in my best interest to say it, but to some degree I agree with him. If it were a standard clause that was required to be put in the appropriate contracts, I would say that would be much better way to go about the situation. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? The motion to amend CA -14 to remove all changes except to give the auditor the authority to retain independent legal counsel in Section 1(f)(5) and changing the word "shall" to "may" in Section 10 -13 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, 45 Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we are back to the original motion that is pending. Is there any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I just want to clarify. The only two things we have retained from the original motion are the independent counsel and the "shall" to "may." Is that correct? CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -14 as amended at first reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, we have one other amendment that deals with the Legislative Auditor. May I suggest we take it out of order, since she is already up here. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, are there any objections to taking CA -34 out of order? Alright, let's look at CA -34. (CA -34 is taken out of order) CA -34: BUDGETARY INDEPENDENCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR Adds a sub - section (d) to Section 10 -3. The purpose is to set the budget of the office of the legislative auditor by calculating the allocation for the office of the legislative auditor as a percentage of the total of the operating and special funds budgets. The actual funds will come from the general fund. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to approve CA -34 and forward it to second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -34 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Just for the record, I'll be voting against this for the same reasons I stated previously. I believe that every department should go make their case for their budget through the budgeting process, and make the same arguments in that process; what is best practice and what limits we had from the previous year, etcetera. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I'll be voting in favor because I think the Legislative Auditor's office holds a very different position than every other department in the government. Since they are the watch -dogs, they are ones that come before the Council and tell them what you are doing wrong, and essentially embarrass you in front of the public. So, the natural reaction can be that we don't want to be embarrassed or we don't want to be looked at. So, I think it is subject to more political manipulation than the rest of the budget is. I do believe that an independent Legislative Auditor is one of the most important positions we have in the County, so I will vote in favor of this; I really do think it is very important. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Although in general I am in agreement with Mr. Nahale -a on this idea; on this issue I'm going to be in favor of this amendment also. I think without budgetary independence, they don't have true independence. I agree with Ms. Jarman, that this is a little bit different from other departments. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Just a quick question. I know administration did kind of tell us what the budget amount was for this year, and how that differed from the minimum. Does anyone know what that was? CHR. HAITSUKA: I thought it was $900,000 something. MR. NAHALE -A: What it over or under this percentage? MR. UNGER: If I remember, it was like $200,000 over. They would have gotten $200,000 more. MR. NAHALE -A: Maybe you can help me with this. Let's say the formula was in place. How does the public, via the process, get more insight into your budget and how you are spending it and things like that? MS. SCHRANDT: Again, I didn't ask to have this brought forward; I want to make that clear. I actually have strong feelings on both sides of this argument. My office would still have to go through the budgetary process, like any other department. We would still have to present our budget; we would still have to justify the expenditures to be made. 47 From that perspective, in knowing that myself personally, I would not ask for more funding than what we actually felt was necessary. I can kind of say, yes, in a way, because I know the other side of this argument. I know the political difficulties that come with being the auditor. It was a lesson why this was brought forward; even though it wasn't at my request. The other side of that is, I can't speak for whoever might be in this position always, and I do have objections to anyone being given funding that they don't have to justify. So, again, I understand why this was brought forward, and I think there are issues with the budget for the auditor's office, whether or not this is the best mechanism to assure that that funding happens; I am not entirely sure that this is proper because I think the office should be under as much scrutiny as any other department. In times such as we are experiencing now, we should have to make sure those funds are expended as wisely as they can be. If that means by another department, than that's how it should be. I don't know what to tell you on this. I have feelings both ways. I understand the reason for it; I would like to see assurance that the office is sufficiently funded. But, I do have some reservations about any office or department being guaranteed a certain amount of funding without assuring proper scrutiny. Even though I would have to come and present the budget, I'm not sure that I feel that the scrutiny at budget time with the county is at the depth that it should be anyways. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I think that is taken care of in Section 10 -3 (d) (3) and (4) where it says, "(3) Any unexpended or unencumbered funds shall revert to the general fund balance. (4) Funds that are not anticipated to be used by the office of the legislative auditor may be returned to the general fund at any time, at the discretion of the legislative auditor." My sense is that if the Legislative Auditor's budget comes in significantly lower than whatever .0025% is, the Legislative Auditor would then still have to put the budget forth to the Council. So, I don't really think there is a problem with that because of those provisions. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Do you think it is necessary to get a percentage of both the Operating Budget and the Special Funds Budgets? MS. SCHRANDT: I think if you are going to do it, that's probably the best mechanism to use. MR. NAHALE -A: Do you know what the percentages are? What percentage of the County budget are Special Funds? MS. SCHRANDT: No, off the top of my head, I don't. I do know that originally they had the CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) included in that, and that is improper for the County because the County isn't held to always putting forth a CIP budget based on the funding available. It's more of a wish list kind of thing, which I thought that was entirely inappropriate then, to use that in the calculation for the budget. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Since this is first reading, if we pass it this way, we could then find out the difference and then if we want to amend it to include just the Operating budget, we could get that information and do it at second reading too. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: Do you feel the process, so far, without dedicated funds; do you think it has worked for you, or have you felt shorted in the past? MS. SCHRANDT: The budget, I think, has been sufficient. There was a situation where a Communication was brought forward to transfer a significant amount of the budget out, and there was no communication with me prior to that coming before the Council. There was no discussion or request as to what the plans were for those funds, and that I think was an issue. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE-A: In that situation, that was defeated, right? It didn't go anywhere, correct? MS. SCHRANDT: Yes, they did find another funding source. MR. NAHALE -A: I guess, for me, you lose that, right. Someone made a proposal, you see where they are going, that's information for all of us. The way they are doing it now, you don't get any of that information. I think that is one of my concerns. To me there are examples, they prove the system works. Even though it was uncomfortable, that's part of our democratic system; people have a right to say what they want, and put forth proposals; then you trust the process to root it out. Sometimes we don't like the results, but that's the process. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? I think we are going to do this as a roll -call vote, so you need to press your button when I call you. The motion to approve CA -34 at first reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman and Shumway Noes: Commissioners Honma, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: I have another request to take something out of order. There are people here from the Planning Department. Are there any objections to taking CA -12 out of order? (C14-21 taken out of order) CA -21: PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERSHIP Amends Section 13 -4(k). The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the planning process is above reproach and to maintain the integrity of the planning commission and appeals board by avoiding charges of the appearance of impropriety in the composition of these bodies. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -21 and forward it to a second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -21 at first reading. Seconded by Ms. Honma. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Since nobody really wanted to second it, this may be useless. In response to the Planning Director's concerns, I'll put this on the table in case the Planning Director's concerns were anyone else's concerns. First of all, I did this in response to one of the people who testified in front of this body. I know Bobby Jean, you are opposed to it in general, but can you come up here a second? Assume for a moment you don't have strenuous objections to it in general; but we know that you do. I did hear and understand your objection about using permit holders indirectly or broadly. If we took out the language, "... or indirectly..." that would take care of everybody's family members. And then it would say, "...from permit holders who received their permits say within the past two or three years... " would that take care of that particular problem that you had with this provision? MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Not entirely. I really think that the real issue is if it is somebody who has been compensated to appear before the board, or someone who has applied for something within the prior two years, as opposed to all of their employees who may not have had anything to do with it. What I'm thinking of is if you have some entity that comes in and applies, and they are very large; if you look at KTA, it is one of the largest employers on the island, do you want something that they have applied for in the past two years, to disqualify anyone employed by them from sitting on the Planning Commission for the next five years? I really thought that the public concern was people who are like lobbyists, attorneys representing clients, or the actual applicant who appears before the Planning Commission. The other problem I have is the connection between going before the Planning Commission and disqualification on the Board of Appeals, since the Board of Appeals does not hear any appeals from the Planning Commission decisions. All they hear are appeals of either the Planning Director or the Public Works Director. I didn't understand what the connection was between going before the Planning Commission was and 50 disqualification from Board of Appeals. That was part of the disconnect for me too. I just thought it was overly broad. If, instead, it was something narrowly tailored to lobbyists or people who had been paid to appear before the Planning Commission; that would be narrower. Part of my concern is you have no idea how difficult it is for us to get volunteers to serve on some of these boards and commissions. We beat the bushes. But, when people find out how much time they have go to commit, it gets very difficult. There are some people who are willing to volunteer. MS. JARMAN: Thank you, I just wanted to hear the other side. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? We'll do a roll call on this one also. The motion to approve CA -21 at first reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, can we take a brief recess so we can take care of the audio recording? RECESS: At 4:42 p.m., the Chair called for a 5- minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 4:50 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: We are now on CA -24, Boards and Commissions. CA -24: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Amends Section 13 -4 regarding the nomination, confirmation, and removal procedure of county boards and commissions. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -24 and forward it to second reading Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -24 at first reading. Seconded by Ms. Honma. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Honma. 51 MS. HONMA: I have a question. They talked about this earlier where if the Commission members nominate the people and the Mayor is only doing a background check. Is there a way that we can combine what they are saying and what is actually happening now? I think now the Mayor is trying to go find people and then once they go through that process the Council approves. That's the process now? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, I believe so. MR. HOOKANO: The current process is that the Mayor nominates and the Council approves. MS. HONMA: I was just reading in the paper about how we are having a hard time finding enough people to serve on the boards and commissions and I was just wondering if there was a way to help the Mayor out to find people, and involve the Council members. I'm just throwing this out, I don't know if this is going down the right avenue or not. But if there was a way to make it so that we could get a bigger supply of people, a bigger pool to draw from, so we could fill out the boards and commissions a little easier. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think under the current process, nothing prohibits the Council from suggesting names to the Mayor; people from their districts. So they have the ability to propose members for the various commissions and boards. Then the process is in place. I think we have the Corporation Counsel here; maybe he is going to overrule and correct me. LINCOLN ASHIDA (At this time Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. ASHIDA: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I am sitting here before you because I realize that it is just physically impossible for me to sit through and entire meeting and shut up. But, actually, everything I've heard is accurate. The Mayor is responsible for making the nominations for all board and commission members, but that does not necessarily mean that he is the only one who has the opportunity for input. For example, you alluded to what was in the papers today about our difficulties in recruiting members for the Cost of Government Commission. In that particular situation, in the first week of November, we asked all nine Council members to provide nominations, names or input; and only one Council member responded. I think you should not get the impression that their input is not sought under the present system. They have been in the past, they are today; whether they provide nominations, or not, or recommendations, or not, is completely up to them. One comment that I heard earlier from one of the testifiers about Council members have knowledge about who the leaders in their respective communities are. That is very true; there is no question about it. But, so does the Mayor, because he is the Chief Executive of the entire County. He is the Mayor of the entire County, so he, unlike Council members, is not wedded to one particular Council district. Actually the difficulty we 52 have regarding volunteers for boards and commissions is what we have experienced in recent years; and I think Ms. Leithead -Todd expressed earlier, is the time commitment in terms of the meeting times, the preparation time, the late nights; look you are here now on a Friday night, and it's getting close to 6:00 p.m. Also, I think a lot of the boards and commissions have become sort of controversial. A lot of what they do, or should do, or don't do, is being reported in the media; sometimes accurately and unfortunately sometimes inaccurately. For a lot of these volunteers, they say, "Why do I have to put up with this crap? Am I volunteering my time to get this ?" So, being the one responsible on the administration's side for coordinating boards and commissions, I can tell you that that is the number one concern that I get form people when you ask them to volunteer is why would I put myself up and allow myself to go through that. So, I don't think the difficulty is because it is with the Mayor or the Council; frankly I don't think that makes a bit of difference at all. That is just my five cents, I guess. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: While I was the one who introduced this, I did it at the request of a member of the public, and I'm actually opposed to it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Let's take a roll -call vote. The motion to approve CA -24 at first reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CA -25: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANS (CDP) Adds a new section to Article III and amends Section 6- 7.2(b)(2). These provisions would make the community development planning process part of the charter and create community development plan action committees. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to approve CA -25 and forward to second reading? Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -25 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Unger? 53 MR. UNGER: Bobby -Jean, do you think you can come back up for a minute? I'm still trying to get my arms around this whole CDP, Planning Department, County Council; how this is all supposed to work together. I have some very basic questions for you right off the bat. Maybe you can enlighten me. Right now, how many CDP's are in existence? MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: We have one for Kona, one for South Kohala, one for North Kohala, and one for Puna. We have a Steering Committee that is in the process of creating one for Ka`u. We are currently going through applications for a Steering Committee for what is Hamakua, North Hilo, and Rural South Hilo. So that will get us up to six. Depending on how you interpret the language, there is an old Hilo Community Development Plan that was adopted 30 years ago, so in theory, you could create an Action Committee for them. Ultimately, if you fund one for South Hilo, you are probably looking at a total of about seven. Though in the future, if you broke up North and South Kona, which is currently one into two, you could have multiple Action Committees, and if you wanted to go in smaller segments like for South Hilo, then you could also add additional Action Committees that way. MR. UNGER: So, as far as actual plans in front of you, that you are obligated to act on, do you have four in front of you? MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Yes. MR. UNGER: So what obligates you to - - -How do I phrase this? Is there an ordinance out there that dictates to you that when these plans come in that you must go through a process? MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Yes, both the General Plan and the way the CDP's have been adopted. Since they have been adopted by ordinance, it requires that when rezonings come in, I have to see if it is consistent with the CDP, consistent with the General Plan and consistent with State Land Use. We also look at neighboring areas to see if it is consistent with what is going on in a community. All of that is included in out report on rezoning applications, special use permits; on anything that goes before the Planning Commission which is really where the discretionary approvals are. The ones that are processed within my department are what I call the ministerial. As long as you comply with the subdivision code, I really cannot deny you a subdivision approval; and neither could an Action Committee, because you already have a right, under the law to subdivide your property, as long as you put in the required infrastructure under the law. MR. UNGER: Has there been instances where you have made a decision that is contrary to what the CDP had recommended? MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: No, in fact we have turned away applicants who have come in and asked -- because sometimes you never even see the proposal; they come in and talk to us and say - - "I want to rezone this property." Sometimes, we say, it's not consistent. In the case I'm thinking about the guy wanted to rezone along Alii Drive, and I looked at it and I said I could not support the rezoning because it was inconsistent with the Kona 54 CDP which required that basically Alii Highway get built before any further rezoning. So they subsequently did not submit a plan. On Special Use Permits, we have looked at whether it's consistent with the CDP. I've recommended denial in several cases. But, because the community - -and this is in Puna where I recommended denial of at least two Special Use Permits because I thought they were inconsistent with the CDP - -came forward and thought that I was interpreting the CDP too restrictively, and in the other case the members of the subdivision in Paradise Park, the Homeowners Association came out and said they felt the CDP did not provide enough opportunity within Hawaiian Paradise Park, and so the Planning Commission listened to members of the public over my objections. MR. UNGER: I wish David was here, because his concern and mine was too, was where are the teeth - -he repeated this several times -- behind the CDP? But, it sounds like the CDP's are functioning pretty good, and you are making decisions based on those things. MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: The difference is they were adopted by ordinance as opposed to adopted by resolution. So my planners consider them to have the force and affect of law, and that we are required to review them and make recommendations to the Planning Commission based on what is in the CDP as well as the General Plan. The area of conflict sometimes is that the General Plan says that where there is a dispute between the General Plan and the CDP, the General Plan shall control; and that is also adopted by ordinance. MR. UNGER: I don't have any more questions. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Thank you Bobby Jean. Do you think there is a place for the CDP in the Charter? You have heard my bias before; that I don't like to clutter up the Charter. MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: I really prefer not to have it in. It's because we are just starting this process. We have just appointed our first Action Committee. Until we see how they perform, until we see what it takes to run them; I really hate to kind of institutionalize them in the Charter. My other objection--and it goes to some of the concerns that people in the community have - -is that in a tight budgetary time, I'm very concerned about mandating things in the Charter that a County Council cannot suspend, hold off on, temporarily suspend the actions, because we don't have the money. Basically, if you put these things in the Charter, and I have to service them, and they take additional money; to some extent you are basically mandating that either some other department has to have their budget cut, or the County Council will have to raise taxes to fund these things. That's where we are going down the road to. Every time you add something to the Charter, there is a cost. Before I can propose a CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) project, I have to propose how much it is going to cost and how much it is going to cost every year to operate that Capital Improvement Project so that you have some ability to forecast the impact on the budget. At this point, we don't know 55 what the impact the Action Committees are on the budget yet because we are just starting. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I think this is one area of all the amendments that I have been introducing for somebody else this is the one that I am actually most committed to. The reason that I think I am most committed to this is that of all aspects of community participation in government, planning, to me is where the rubber meets the road. It is our quality of life, it is what we want our communities to look like, it's who we want to be as a community, and it is different in different parts of the island. Kona is different from Waimea, which is different from Volcano, which is different from Ka`u and I just think leaving the decision for community planning to the political whims of the Council; I would rather not do that. I think we already have the General Plan in the Charter, and I think there is a reason why we have the General Plan in the Charter; and it's the same reason, because it is that important. I would like us to have the CDP's in the Charter and what I would propose to do after we have some discussion would be to accept the proposed amendment pursuant to Friends of Puna's Future, to say, as they suggested, to take care of some of the previous concerns that Ms. Leithead -Todd had. But this is a place that I really would not want to leave it to the political whims of the Council; because this really is the public, more than the Planning Commission and everything else. I'm going to go out on a limb and really support this one. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I'm also really torn about this. We have heard more testimony on this issue probably than anything else. I have a question for Mr. Leithead -Todd. Given the fact that you seem to have indicated that the process mostly works; why do you think there is such an input from the community? It's not just Puna, it's come from other places too, on this issue. MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Well, currently the process provides that they would provide and review amendments to the CDP. They would make recommendations for implementation of the CDP and propose amendments to the Charter. There is nothing currently in the County Code that says they review or make recommendations on any of the applications that are processed through the department. That is the difference between what is in the County Code versus what is being proposed for the County Charter. My biggest objection to having to take things to an Action Committee for their recommendation as to how I'm supposed to approve or deny an application, is the time constraints. Basically, a lot of this is - - -I don't mind giving them a report, I don't mind giving them a list of what applications, because we publish a list of subdivision applications, we publish lists of other things. I can provide them the agendas of what is going to go on at the Planning Commissions, but if I can't move things forward to the Planning Commission, or if I can't process documents until they give me a 56 recommendation, then what is going to happen is a lot of stuff is going to be automatically approved. We are not going to meet the timelines. What you have done is stretch the time. Some of it I have no control over, neither does the County Council. Some if it is subject to State law. So, you have to go to the State Legislature to try to change the timelines on automatic approvals. My concern is unintended consequences here. Action Committee members can show up at a County Council meeting, they can show up at a Planning Commission meeting. They can object, they can make testimony that they think it is inconsistent; as long as they are testifying on their own as opposed to as an entity. They haven't lost that right. I don't mind giving them information. My concern is having any thing that says that I have to wait for their review and recommendations before I can move projects through my departments, because of the timelines that are mandated by the County Code as well as State law. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I think that because of my stance on the Charter Commission, some folks probably won't believe this, but I think first and foremost I am a believer in community empowerment and community organizing. But, we have to be honest and realistic with ourselves. I think to the point that Ms. Jarman made about leaving the process to political whims; I think there is no question in my mind, having done lots of community work that these Action Committees will become political entities as soon as they have to make the hard decisions that have to do with land use planning approvals. That is the nature of the business. It is political for a reason; you have conflicting interests. What is to say that as soon as you empower an Action Committee, that folks in the community question the Action Committee? That's how I see the dominos falling. It is almost like creating another layer of bureaucracy that further confuses the public and makes them not want to participate. That is hard for me to say because I know that the folks that have been going through the CDP process have put in just enormous amounts of time and energy. They are here, they are testifying, they are emotional. But, I just don't think this is the solution they are looking for. That is my big concern. I really appreciate that you have articulated the larger process. There are unintended consequences to some of these decisions, and I think, in my opinion, we are not giving them what they really want. Ultimately, the community can participate in this. It's interesting to me when folks come in and say they are speaking for the community, yet they don't get elected to office. There is a process in place to have political influence. If you truly represent the community, then you should be able to get elected to office and move that agenda forward; the true will of the people. I don't want us to supersede that process. One of the best things about this country is we have a legitimate electoral process. Sometimes I think we just have to think about that. Are we wiping that out to some degree? Again, it's hard for me, because I think that community work is the hardest work, and the people who put time and energy into it deserve to have a say. That probably can continue to happen outside of this commission. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. 57 MR. UNGER: At this point, I am somewhat in agreement with Casey. I would recommend that we simplify this and I would be interested to see what kind of language you come up with, based on what the Puna group has suggested. I do think we need to simplify it. Right off the bat, in Section 3 -16 (a) (3); that would be something that I would not support at all. In lieu of other language, I would support removing it altogether. But, I do think it is important. The fact that we do have these Steering Committees, or Community Development Committees out there actually encourages the people to come in and participate in the whole process. I don't think it eliminates or restricts people at that point; I think it encourages it, and that is a good thing. I am in favor of moving this forward. I would like to see different language, and definitely as it relates to Section 3 -16 (a) (3). CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: We could either take it out, or - - -I don't know if you have the testimony from the Friends of Puna, where they changed it so they would ask for certain types of permits to be notified. If we were to adopt that language, versus taking it out, I think we don't have to worry about (1). They are not a decision - making body, they are an advisory body. I don't think we would have to worry about it adding to the time, because it says, "... shall further any recommendations and applications in a timely manner for consideration and review." So they would have to act at whatever time -frame that the Planning Director gives them; so I think that could be taken care of If that would be the only thing that would prevent people from voting in favor of it, then I would be willing to just delete (3) in order to have the CDP's be in here. So I would consider that as an amendment that I would accept if you were to make it, Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I was going to just say, once again, sort of like I said earlier about the four -year terms; we are not changing the Charter, we are establishing amendments for people to vote on. I think there has been enough testimony, enough concern about this issue. I think I would support giving people the opportunity to vote on this. I would support an amendment to drop (3) though, because I share Bobby Jean's concerns. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Honma. MS. HONMA: I'm with Scott. I think the CDP's are important, but I just think it needs to be a lot simpler. I just don't like the constraint of everything. I think it needs to be simplified. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: You know, earlier on in our public testimony, Bobby Jean, a lot of the concern was the delay in appointing the Puna Action Committee. I'm wondering what you can share with us about that process? Does that have to be - -- M MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: Well, I was going to say that any time you have a change in administration, you can expect delay. When Harry Kim got elected, and Chris Yuen became the new Planning Director, he yanked the General Plan back for an entire year. It had been processed and was ready to go, and then he decided he wanted to put his own stamp on it, and he pulled it back. That delayed the General Plan going forward for a year. What happened in this case was the list got to the Mayor's office, and he felt that it didn't represent all of the community. The nominees that had gone forward were based primarily in three subdivisions; there were other areas of Puna that had no representation on the Action Committee, and so he asked for more names. Then we kind of went through this process of, do they have to go back to the Planning Department to come up with the names; or can they be names that the Mayor just comes up with? It was kind of like, because it was the first one and we really weren't sure about this. We ended up going back to the original process, which was we solicited additional names. The same committee that reviewed the first set of names and came up with recommendations came up with a list. That list went to the Mayor and he sent the exact list that came up from the community committee to the County Council with no changes in the composition for the Puna Action Committee. Some of the people who participated in the process actually said they ended up with a better Action Committee than they had in the original list. We have had issues with the other Action Committees too, in trying to see if we can get more people. Sometimes people drop out in the process. Some of it is just the process of going from one administration to another; and the changes that entails. Hamakua is going to take us awhile. We have 63 names to go through. We have to rank them, and that ranking will go to the Mayor. That is going to take a while. But, I think ultimately we have complied with the mandates. In fact, the Puna Action Committee is meeting tonight, because they wanted to have another meeting before Christmas. I think that it is working well. As we get our nominating process in place, both in the departments and in the Mayor's office, I think it will go a little bit smoother. Part of the problem, too, is just the sheer number of boards and commissions and committees and vacancies that the staff in the Mayor's office and Corporation Counsel has had to go through, because all of those names have to go through criminal background checks. From when I first started working in county government, we have more than doubled the number of boards, commissions and committees that we nominate people to. So, it has made for a lot more time and effort for the staff. On another note, my major objection is number (3). I think the County Council can set up in the County Code what goes to the Action Committees; it doesn't necessarily have to be in the Charter. If some version of (3) is going to remain, I would recommend that you do take a look at what Neighborhood Boards do. Neighborhood Boards review certain types of applications; they don't review the same types of applications that go to the Planning Commissions. I served on a Neighborhood Board on Oahu, and we got certain types of things that we made recommendations and held public hearings on. So, you may want to see if you want to have some type of hybrid. I just think it is very difficult to put that into a Charter. So, if this proceeds without number (3), I think that is 59 the easiest way to go. I think it would be very difficult to draft language that you can really figure out what goes to them, what doesn't go to them without taking a look at the timelines. Even though it says timely manner, the problem is that if I have to comply with the Sunshine Law, in agendizing it before them, it takes me far longer to take it to a committee than it does to send a letter out to the Fire Chief and say please give me your comments on this application. On some applications we have 30 days, some applications we have 45 days, on some it's 60, some it's 90; some it's longer than that. That is the difficulty, and I'd probably have to come in with a whole list of what we have and what the time -lines are. MR. NAHALE -A: I think everything that folks want can be done outside of the Charter, so I'm going to continue to vote no. But, I hear from my colleagues that this is an important issue to them, and it may go forward. We are very fortunate to have somebody with your experience in this position; if we go forward, we are not going to have a good amendments proposal without your help. If it does pass, would you be able to give insights into how we could craft an amendment that would be workable? MS. LEITHEAD -TODD: I would be more than willing to work with the Commission or designated Commission members on trying to craft some language that would be a little clearer as to what exactly goes to the Action Committee and also in terms of implications on what types of applications go forward, and what the time constraints are. Perhaps, if you are going to go down that road, what you would be looking at is language that mandates that amendments to the County Code be made on timelines. Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -25 by deleting (a) (3) in Section 3 -16 and renumbering the section. Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger, Shumway and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: CA -25 has been amended to delete paragraph (a) (3) in Section 3 -16 and renumber this proposed amendment without that particular paragraph. So now we have the original motion, which is a motion to approve CA -25 and to move it forward to second reading. MS. HONMA: I have one more question. Can it be re- written, or if we just pass it, it cannot be re- written to change other language within it? .E MR. HOOKANO: Things can still be amended at second reading. If you pass it forward like this, there will still be another opportunity to amend at second reading. The motion to approve CA -25 as amended at first reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, and Nahale -a Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: That motion actually fails because it requires six votes to pass it forward. Six is a majority of the board. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's get back to the ones that we passed by. We are now at CA -19. CA -19: OFFICE OF COUNCIL SERVICES Adds a section to Article III and amends Section 6 -5.3. The purpose is to provide the county council with the option of establishing a legal office separate from corporation counsel if it so chooses. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to approve CA -19 and move it to second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -19 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would like to ask support for this. We did have a lot of testimony on this, and as a past County Clerk, this was an issue that was always a difficult one. So, I decided we should let the Council choose. I looked at the Office of Council Services and talked to the people over on Oahu. They have Corporation Counsel, but they also have an office of Council Services. I modeled this on that particular provision, and adapted it to Hawaii County. It doesn't require establishing an office separate from Corporation Counsel, but it gives the County Council the authority to do so if they feel they need to, would like to, and it is within the budgetary constraints etcetera. So, that is why I proposed it in this formal stage. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. 61 MR. SHUMWAY: I would like to ask Mr. Ashida to come up and address this. Have you read the amendment? MR. ASHIDA: No, I haven't read the actual text, I just generally know what it is about, I can tell by reading the description. MR. SHUMWAY: What is your opinion? MR. ASHIDA: Since you asked that, now I better read the text. Your question is if I have any thoughts or opinions about this. First of all, I think there may be a lot of hidden costs that may not be readily apparent by just reading this proposal. Anytime you introduce more lawyers into the landscape, things just get litigious. They fight for the sake of fighting, and the cost goes up. Pretty soon, the taxpayers are going to be called upon to fund battles based on the principles of the Mayor versus the Council, and the taxpayers will be footing the bill for basically fighting a politically based war, or difference of opinion. I often tell people - -you know this is my ninth year as Corporation Counsel - -one thing I learned early on which has held true to today is I'm probably more engaged in the practice of mediation than I am in the practice of law. Representing both the administration, the executive branch, and the Council is daunting. There is no question about it, but I find most of my time is spent attempting to reconcile positions and differences. Stepping back and looking at it, I think there is a tremendous value to that because we avoid a lot of what I think could be needless litigation. A lot of people say I serve two masters, I have a conflict of interest; how can you do that. We are aware of what our ethical responsibilities are; we know where the limits are. Mr. Haitsuka, as Chairman knows that; under our rules of professional conduct, we pay close attention to that all the time. With respect to government attorneys, we are allowed different latitude as compared to attorneys in the private sector. We are afforded that latitude to represent two sides of a dispute. In private practice attorneys would be restricted from doing that type of thing. Government attorneys are afforded that latitude. So, that's one thing that struck me when I heard about this is the added cost and the contentiousness in litigation that is going to ensue. I mentioned this to one of my counterparts, Kari Okinaga, she is the Corporation Counsel for the City and County of Honolulu. Ms. Jarman said she modeled this after the City and County's set up. She told me that they have situations where, because they have an office of Council Services that takes care of the Council, they have attorneys in that office that tell the Corporation Counsel not to talk to their client unless you have their permission. There is this contentiousness there. It's almost like if I wanted to go talk to the Council Chair, Mr. Yoshimoto, but then Levi, who is in that office now, says, "Hey, Ashida, you don't talk to him unless you get my consent." If that is how it's going to be, then I would say, if this moves forward, then put the Corporation completely off the hook. I don't want anything to do with the Council at that point. Don't say, "Okay, you represent them," but then you are introducing this other lawyer who says I can't talk to my client. It's almost like either you are my client or you are not my client. So, that is - one reaction I had to this. Either I am their lawyer, or I'm not. But to say you are their lawyer, but then bring someone else in you can kind of tell me, "Hey you better stay away from my client," that's just a mess. Casey, I don't know if when you talked to the Council Services folks on Oahu if you got any feedback about their relationship with Corporation Counsel, but that's the feedback I got from Kari. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Well, he thought it was working well. There could be potential times when people are not going to see eye to eye or not going to agree on the way something is working or a policy. He has been there for several years, and feels it is working well and is realistic. Again, this is only if the Council feels it has a need to have it, and if there is enough money in there to fund it. It's not requiring the Council to do it, it is just giving them the option to do it if they would like to. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm going to vote no, primarily because if it was important, I think the Council would have come and asked us to do it. I'd rather focus our efforts on a few key items. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I have a question. In the testimony, some speculation was made that if we had representation for the County Council, certain issues may have not seen litigation. How do you respond to those sort of hypothetical situations. MR. ASHIDA: It's difficult to respond to a hypothetical situation; could you be more specific about what cases you are referring to. MR. SHUMWAY: The Hokulia case was specifically brought up, and I just want to know if in your opinion, would there have been advantages to have separate counsel? MR. ASHIDA: Which Hokulia case? There are a few. There was the Hokulia case which sought to stop the development and the second case which is currently pending is the condemnation of the roadway in order to build a bypass. I don't recall that case being an issue where the Council—Ms. Jarman can correct me if I'm wrong —was seeking its own private attorney. She's shaking her head no. MR. SHUMWAY: Then just generally, is there a situation in the past where you could have seen that it would have been beneficial. MR. ASHIDA: Yes, absolutely. There are times when, frankly, not talking about any particular case, but because you have nine Council members, nine political individuals with sometimes open preferences between minority and majority factions. What I want to do when I go home at night and can fantasize about what I want to do in my 63 professional life is, I want to say, "Go get your own lawyer, because where you are coming from, I don't want to have to defend that." But then I calm down and then I realize I can't do that, because the Charter requires me to represent the Council as a body, and not their individual political motives, agendas, desires, or what have you. And as Mr. Nahale -a has been pointing out, part of our democratic process is the majority rules. I get criticized sometimes that I am just doing the bidding of the majority of the Council. And my answer to that is, "You are absolutely correct." And that is because the Council expresses its policy through the passage of legislation; whether it's 9 -0 or 5 -4, that's still the majority vote, and I'm obliged legally and ethically to defend that. I don't care which five voted for it, but if they passed it legally, and it's sound legislation, I have to defend it. It just so happens that in life the majority are the guys who are passing it. So I'm always looked at as a bag boy for the majority. That is true; I am defending the majority vote. Same here, if you folks forward something by a majority vote, and you get legally challenged and sued later, and I were to go to court and represent the Charter Commission. Say, Haitsuka is on the prevailing side, and Mr. Shumway was on the non prevailing side of that particular vote, if I'm defending the actions of the Charter Commission, I'm not coming down on you just because you voted on the losing side; I need to represent and honor whatever the prevailing side of the legislation was. I guess, to answer your question, that situation does come up where minority members of the board or council do feel alienated. They feel they don't have a lawyer representing them. I try to explain that it is not personal, but sometimes that is difficult to do. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MR. ASHIDA: I thought Casey was going to rebut me now. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, just to let you know that if this Commission gets legally challenged in court, you have the best defense possible, because I won't let anything go through that would be legally insufficient. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, we got that on the record. Alright, is there any further discussion? I think my comment on this is that I tend to agree with Lincoln; I don't think we need any more lawyers. When I told my grandfather I was going to go to law school, he said, "We don't need any more damn lawyers in this family, we already have two." And I'm not sure how it would work between the Office of Council Services and the Corporation Counsel; I think it could get into a contentious situation. I'm also concerned about the costs. I did like the way Ms. Jarman drafted this. It's drafted to give the Council the opportunity to establish the office if they wanted to. I did like that about the way it was drafted, but I'm still torn as far as whether or not it is something that we need. MS. JARMAN: I was just going to say that since I'm training people to be lawyers, based upon what you and Mr. Ashida said, I guess I ought to resign from my job as a law professor. I guess we don't need any more lawyers around. But I'm glad I had the opportunity to teach Mr. Hookano before we close down the law school. Thank you. MR. SHUMWAY: I was just going to say that I, too, liked the way that Ms. Jarman drafted this. I was very opposed to some of the initial proposals, which is why I was asking those questions. Maybe there are reasons, but I am vey concerned about the cost. I know this is drafted from the way Honolulu has it, but I think we have a very different situation here. We are much smaller, and I think one of the nice things about living here is that it is less contentious. I don't think that introducing this is necessary here and I don't think I will be supporting it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Alright, let's take a vote. The motion to approve CA -19 at first reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman and Kaulukukui. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Nahale -a Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CA -20: COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES Adds a section to Article III. Creates standing committees composed of all council members and ensure councilmembers from each district have the same opportunity to have input in the development of ordinances and resolutions at the committee level. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -20 and refer it to a second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -20 at first reading. Seconded by Chair Haitsuka. Motion failed due to the following vote: Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. 65 RECESS: At 6:00 p.m., the Chair called for a 5- minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 6:05 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's get started. We have 10 more proposed amendments to go through. CA -22: FILING OF COUNCIL AGENDA Amends Section 3 -7. The proposed amendment would require notices of all regular and special meetings of the council to be conspicuously posted on the bulletin board of the Hawai'i County Building with an electronic notice linked on the appropriate council webpage and specify time for filing and posting the notice to be 4:30 p.m. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -22 and refer it to a second reading? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve CA -22 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. NAHALE -A: I'm going to vote no. I think we can just follow the State laws regarding this. MS. HONMA: I have a question. Would the only change being proposed here be to post it on the internet? CHR. HAITSUKA: There are a few, I think. One of them would be posting on some type of internet site, and there would be a deadline of 4:30 pm. on the sixth calendar day prior to a council meeting. So it sets a deadline, because there have been some complaints that previous agenda had been filed after 4:30 p.m. and it was difficult for the public to gain access; I think that was the genesis for this. Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: So right now, this is not on the County website? Is that a true statement? The Council agendas are not on the website? MR. GOODENOW: As I stated in Communication 116, currently our agendas are posted on the County website. If you know how to access the Laserfiche system, and there is a link to that; it is posted almost simultaneously. When we post, we put it on the Laserfiche. However, if you go to the regular web site, you go County Council, there will be a link to agendas; it is also posted there. However, because Data Systems does it, there may be a day delay. It has been longer than that on occasion, but we do post it. .. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think you testified earlier that it would it be difficult to post it by the 4:30 p.m. deadline the sixth day prior. MR. GOODENOW: Yes, in Communication 116, I attached just a sample page of our calendar. You can see how our deadlines for agendas usually fall the very day following a council meeting and I'm sure Ms. Jarman can tell you that we have looked at trying to shorten the time period. It looks like 4:30 p.m. is just one day, right. Just do it a day earlier. But it is really hard for the staff to do that. In my opinion it would result in a two -week delay between first reading and second reading, and subsequently a third if there is more than two readings. I think just the time, 4:30 p.m. to midnight; that is seven and a half hours. I don't think it really affects the public that much and the press really couldn't use that extra time anyways. So, I think the advantages that you get from that are small compared to the real likelihood of delay. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: What does the State law require? MR. GOODENOW: The Sunshine law considers it six days. But it considers it by day and not by hours, so it is midnight. Again, I think part of that is we do rely on the Sunshine law to provide appropriate parameters for public notice, in a uniform manner, for all State entities of which the Counties are a political subdivision. You could make it more stringent, that is possible, but I don't know if the Charter is the best place for it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion or questions for Mr. Goodenow? Thank you. We'll take a roll call vote on CA -22. The motion to approve CA -22 failed due to the following vote: Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CA -23: ELECTRONIC NOTICE WITH NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS Amends Sections 3- 10(c)(3), 3- 10(h), 6- 7.5(a)(4), 10 -4, 114(p), 13- 20(c), 15 -2, 15 -3. Whenever a public notice is required by charter or by ordinance to be published in a daily newspaper, the public notice shall also be distributed via an electronic medium, such as the Internet, within the same time frame as newspaper publication. Postponed: November 6, 2009 67 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to approve CA -23 and refer it to second reading? Ms. Shumway moved to approve CA -23 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Shumway could you explain whether you think we should vote for this or not. MR. SHUMWAY: I should have learned my lesson here. I put this in here because there were a number of places in the Charter that require newspaper postings of County business, and it seems to me that at this point, in this day and age, that if it requires a newspaper posting we should also require it posted on line. I think at this point in time, it is important to have both. Then, maybe in ten years, maybe we can eliminate the newspaper part, or maybe that will take care of it if there are no more newspapers. It is also consistent with what Honolulu did recently; they have updated with virtually the exact same language. Hopefully this is not controversial, and it will just update the Charter. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, I have a question for you. When the staff post those notices in the paper for the County Council, do they also put it on the County Council web site? MR. HOOKANO: This might be more appropriate for the Clerk since he is the administrative head of that department. MR. GOODENOW: There are a lot things that we don't. For example, when things pass first reading, we just publish it in the paper. To be honest, I kind of wish we would just have the internet and forget the publishing. We spend over $40,000. We had $40,000 in our budget, and I think we spent $46,000; we ran out. It's a lot of money. Tomorrow, I will talk to the staff. I think this is something we should do; I'm going to implement it immediately. It's a great idea, and of little expense. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: My question is if it gets posted in the paper, what about the electronic version of the paper; would it be included? MR. GOODENOW: It is, it is put in the paper and they do put their notices on line. I think we could put a link on our site and put notices. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. .: MR. SHUMWAY: In reference to your comment that it would be nice to get rid of the newspaper publishing altogether, I was actually asked by one of the council members to amend this to take out newspapers. But, I feel there are a lot of people who still rely on the newspapers. So, I think it is very premature to do that. The purpose of this proposal is to expand the outreach of the County, not to limit it. Ten years from now, yes, it may be possible to take it out. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman MS. JARMAN: So Mr. Unger's question; I don't think it's clear that the newspaper would just put it on the electronic newspaper. When this Sunshine law was passed, there weren't electronic newspapers. I think the court might look at it as the purpose is as much distribution as possible. I don't think it is altogether clear, but I think it's possible that it would have to be in the print media; at least at this point in time, under the Sunshine law. MR. GOODENOW: I would concur with that. MR. UNGER: My question is, when the Tribune Herald newspaper puts out their electronic edition, if it's in their written edition, would it also be included on their electronic edition? MS. JARMAN: Probably, but I don't know if they do. I expect so, but I don't know. MR. SHUMWAY: It might be, but if you don't put it in the Charter, you are leaving it up to the newspaper to do it, rather requiring it be done. That is my purpose, that the County does it, and does not ask the newspaper to do it for the County. MR. UNGER: One more question. We are not specifying where on the internet. So, is that part of the website? Is that what you are suggesting? MR. SHUMWAY: I took the language from the Honolulu City Charter and I think it is meant to have some flexibility so that the County Clerk can determine where best. It would seem to me, likely that it would go on the website but I wouldn't want to write that in the Charter. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Are there any more questions for Mr. Goodenow? Thank you again, Mr. Goodenow. If there is not further discussion, we'll take a roll -call vote. The motion to approve CA -23 at first reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, .• Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to CA -26. CA -26: CONSERVATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Adds a new section to Article XIII, General Provisions. The purpose of this amendment is to memorialize the county's responsibility under the state constitution to ensure development of the natural resources of the county are done in a manner consistent with their conservation and to add cultural resources to this responsibility. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -26 and to forward it to second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -26 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, can we ask Levi to see if this is consistent with the State language? Not right now, but for next time. I'm inclined to approve it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I wrote it, so I can tell you what isn't consistent with State language. The part that I added is basically the Hawaii cultural parts. The wahi pana, the surf spots, historic sites and historic structures; that is not in the State Constitution. I felt like we should be protecting some cultural resources as well as natural resources so I went and talked to the director of Native Hawaiian law at the law school to try to see what would be appropriate to put in there in terms of cultural resources, and those were as a result of our conversation. But that language about, "...promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with our conservation and in furtherance of the self - sufficiency of the county." That is directly from the Constitution. So is the next sentence, except for it says, "... are held in trust by the State." Because State public resources are held in trust by the State, but the court has said that County public trust resources are held in trust by the County. I didn't put in cultural, because I don't know if there are any public cultural resources. That might be something we can go back and look at if this passes first reading, before second reading. I hope that answers your question. MR. SHUMWAY: I have a question. Casey, do you have any comments on some of the suggestions for changing the language that we heard earlier today? 70 MS. JARMAN: If we did pass this and add the cultural resources particularly to that last sentence, I wouldn't have any problem changing it to conservation of natural and cultural resources. We could add conservation and protection. I was modeling it after the Constitution, which just said conservation of natural resources. I thought about this a lot, that I want to drop off that, "... and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation." I kept that in there because I don't think we can just say stop using resources. I think if we took that out, that is what we would be saying. That's not really what I was talking about. I think we do have to use the resources, but I would like us to use them more thoughtfully and in ways that we can perpetuate them and do things sustainably. To me, putting that in there is really putting a sustainability type language. As much as in my heart I love to protect everything, practically, I don't think it's possible. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on this proposed amendment? We are ready to vote. This will be by roll -call vote. The motion to approve CA -26 at first reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -27. CA -27: VACANCIES IN OFFICE Replaces Section 3 -4. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for an election for a councilmember if a vacancy occurs with more than 6 months left in the outgoing member's term and to set a procedure for filling the vacancy when less than 6 months is left that permits members of the public to apply to the council for the vacant office. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -27 and forward it to second reading? What happens if we don't have a motion? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, if there is no motion that basically means that this Commission doesn't want to consider this proposal and it would be defeated. CHR. HAITSUKA: One last call, do I have a motion to approve CA -27 and forward it to second reading? 71 Due to the fact that no motion was made to approve CA -27, it fails. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -28 CA -28: DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL DEFENSE Adds a new chapter to Article V. The proposed amendment would include the department of civil defense in the charter. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -28 and forward it to second reading? Mr. Shumway moved to approve CA -28 at first reading. Seconded by Ms. Jarman. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I'm actually not sure how to vote on this because I'm not sure why we want to do this? We have a Civil Defense office, so it's not clear to me why we need to put this in the Charter. So, could somebody enlighten me on that? MR. UNGER: I don't know whether I can enlighten you, but testimony that Ms. Wille gave us was all based on getting grants; and that if we don't have an established department it makes it more difficult. I don't know, I've never written a grant in my life. But, if that is the case, then it would seem to make some sense. Have you written a grant, do you know anything about grant writing, and would it make it easier to obtain funds? MS. JARMAN: I've written grants, but I don't know why. Maybe Ms. Wille could come up here and enlighten us. I don't know why our current office couldn't do it, or our Mayor's office. MS. WILLE: Thank you for asking me up. When I proposed this, I really had put in the other language about community resilience and emergency preparedness and somewhat expanding the name and scope of that department. So, I was really going beyond what you have here. I don't think it's essential to have this in the Charter, and I think if the administration felt it was important, they could do so. This happens to be where all the money is; and it is having these platforms is helpful to getting it. I'm actually going to go meet with the head of Research and Development concerning one grant that is in the hundreds of thousands. And there are a lot. I do consider, given all of our concerns about finances; that having that kind of language and promoting that level of support is important. It's up to you all and I don't want to be cheerleading on this issue. It's just 72 looking over where money is available and looking at what would be helpful to acquiring it was really my incentive in bringing it forward. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. I introduced this particular proposed amendment after Ms. Wille brought up the subject and noticed that it wasn't in the Charter. I was a little concerned that we didn't have all of the different departments in the Charter. But when I looked over the Charter again I realized there are a lot of departments that we don't have in the Charter; so this is not the only one that is not mentioned. The other thing, too, is I thought someone from Civil Defense would come and either tell us that we needed it our not. I believe we extended an invitation to them and I haven't seen anybody here. We've gone without this in the Charter since it was initially enacted, so I don't know if we necessarily need it. Is there any further discussion? We'll have a roll call -vote. The motion to approve CA -28 failed due to the following vote: Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -29. CA -29: PROSECUTING ATTORNEY POWERS Amends Section 9 -3. The proposed amendment would give the prosecuting attorney additional discretionary powers relating to crime research, prevention and education. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -29 and forward it to second reading? Mr. Shumway moved to approve CA -29 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Since I support this, I think it is a real positive thing. People have testified that it is pro- active. The Prosecuting Attorney supported it, and I don't see why not. 73 CHR. HAITSUKA: I introduced this mainly because I think it is going to give some additional duties to the Prosecuting Attorney and anytime somebody wants to do more work, I'm always for that. Mr. Ashida, you have a comment? MR. ASHIDA: No, just in case any members of the Commission had any specific questions about why Mr. Kimura introduced this, I would be more than happy to answer them. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think he spoke once before and he submitted a communication. Is there any further discussion? We're ready to vote, by roll -call. The motion to approve CA -29 at first reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -30, and it relates to Boards and Commissions CA -30: BOARD AND COMMISSION WEBSITES Amends Section 13 -4. The proposed amendment would require boards and commissions to maintain websites. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -30 and forward it to second reading? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve CA -30 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: I had a question for Mr. Goodenow. Are there any costs associated with this? MR. GOODENOW: Well, this provision doesn't really relate to the County Council, but the agenda posting might make me think there is a timing issue. But that aside, no, I think most boards have a web site, and I don't believe it is costing us anything, it's just added on. Sure, there is a memory cost that the server has, but I don't think it is substantial. That's my opinion, but you should ask someone from the Data Systems Department that question. 74 CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't know if Ms. Eoff, our Commission Secretary has experience with this. Can you come forward and give us your insight. You have some experience with setting up our website, is that correct? How difficult was it? MS. EOFF: It isn't to difficult at all. I provide the information so that it makes it easy for Rose Kakuhane to update it once she established the site. I think there was some work involved in that, but once the page is there, she just inputs the information that I email to her. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you know if there is any related cost with maintaining the website? MS. EOFF: I don't think so; just her time. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger, you had a question. MR. UNGER: Yes, what about the minutes? Is there a Secretary assigned to every board and commission out there? Do they go through the same process; it's done simultaneously, they typing of all the information? Would that take time to get out to the website? Isn't that real time consuming, posting all that stuff? MS. EOFF: No, when I finish the minutes by the deadline, usually a week before the next meeting date, I provide everything to a PDF and send it to her, which is an easy enough file to upload and cannot be changed. And I do the same with all the documents, and then she just creates links to the documents that I send her so that everybody can view them. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm going to vote no, because as I've said many times, I think this is just best practice, and folks can do it. When we put it in the Charter, it creates a lot of legal ramifications. CHR. HAITSUKA: What kind of feedback have you had from people who have actually used the site? MS. EOFF: I've had several people comment and say, "Thank you, it makes it easy to get the documents, and helpful." CHR. HAITSUKA: Does it also make it easier to deal with the public as far as getting information that they request? MS. EOFF: Yes, I send them the link to the website and can mostly get all their question answered there. Even with the stuff that I've been emailing to you guys, I realized that instead of attaching all of the documents separately, I can just send you the link. It is a 75 lot less burdensome sending you an email with a link in it. I think that is how the Council does their documents too. They send people to the website rather than attach all the documents now. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. MS. JARMAN: I'm probably going to vote in favor of it, just so we can move it on so we can ask the administration about how long it would take. This is primarily going to be on the administrative side, on the Mayor's side. They haven't said anything about it either way and so I think I would like to hear what they have to say. So, I'm going to vote to move it forward just to give them the opportunity and then reconsider my vote for second reading. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you and thank you Ms. Eoff. Are there any more questions for Ms. Eoff? MR. UNGER: Yes. What is happening right now with these boards and commissions after theiy have their meetings? Are things being posted on the web right now? MS. EOFF: You know, I don't know about the other boards and commissions, but I think the. all do. Other boards and commissions on the County web site, they all have a page where their basic information is posted; all the members, the secretary, and the contact information. But I don't know if all of them post their minutes and agenda items. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Then we are ready to vote. The motion to approve CA -30 at first reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Nahale -a. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kawauchi, Kealoha, and Osborne. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, could we request that we get some testimony on this from the administration either in writing or in person at the next meeting? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, we will do that. MR. ASHIDA: Mr. Chairman, I can get that information for you. We oversee all the boards and commissions. As a matter of fact, the secretaries in my office actually staff boards and commissions part time. Not all boards and commissions have a dedicated secretary. I think it is important that you get a big picture of what is out there; what the 76 time requirements are as well as what is going on right now. I can assemble that for you. When is your next meeting? CHR. HAITSUKA: Maybe you can let us know if it is necessary. If everybody is doing it already, I don't know if we necessarily have to put it in the Charter. MR. ASHIDA: I'll just get you the data; what is happening now, what they are doing now. When is your next meeting? CHR. HAITSUKA: Sometime in January. We haven't set the date yet MR. HOOKANO: The next meeting would be January 8, 2010, but this kind of discussion is actually out of order right now because this topic has already passed. But Mr. Ashida is saying he will get the data, that's fine. January 8, 2010 is the scheduled one; we'll see at the end of this meeting if all the Commissioners can make it on that date. MR. NAHALE -A: Point of information. At second reading, is it still 2/3 rd vote, or is dropped down to a majority? MR. HOOKANO: None of these things require 2/3 rd vote. It if missed the deadline, that's when it required 2/3 rd vote to be considered. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to proposed amendment CA -32. CA -32: SPECIAL COUNSEL Amends Section 6 -5.5. The proposed amendment would allow any officer or employee to retain special counsel in situations where the corporation counsel has been disqualified. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -32 and forward it to second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -32 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion on this? MS. JARMAN: Can we ask Mr. Ashida his opinion on this? MR. ASHIDA: It's good. The one thing I was concerned about was I didn't understand what subsection (c) meant in terms of if I have been disqualified because of a conflict of interest, how can I manage the Special Counsel who now represents the client? I would be in conflict. I have a problem, unless I am not reading it correctly. If I'm in conflict, I should have nothing to do with the Special Counsel. 77 CHR. HAITSUKA: I think it says except where you are disqualified, so there is an exception. MR. ASHIDA: Oh I see, I see, okay; except in circumstances where I have been disqualified. MS. JARMAN: Except, this only applies when he has been disqualified or has a conflict of interest. It seems like (c) should be deleted. MR. ASHIDA: No, I think (c) will modify (a). By the way, it should be counsel, s -e -1, rather than c -i -1, the spelling in the title. MS. JARMAN: Oh, I see, it modifies (a), not (b). MR. ASHIDA: So, I guess it is saying that if we hire Special Counsel, and it's not a conflict situation, but we are hiring them to assist us because they have specialized expertise, they will be subordinate to us; that happens now, as a practical matter. But (b) is fine. It actually happens now. If we have a conflict, and the county officer or employee is active within the course and scope, we go to Council and get them Special Counsel anyway. So, the only difference that I see is the second sentence in (b) now gives the Mayor and Council members the right to retain Special Counsel in impeachment cases. Under the current Charter, they are on their own. If the Mayor or Council member is getting impeached, they don't get their attorney paid for; they have to hire their own. Their only remedy is, assuming they win, is they can go back to the County, file a claim, and ask that they get reimbursed. So whoever drafted this section, to me, that is the most significant change; that second sentence where it essentially provides that the Mayor and Council members, and the Prosecutor - -those are the three elected officials in our County - -are going to have a right to Special Counsel that the taxpayers are going to pay for. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Are there any further questions for Mr. Ashida? MR. NAHALE -A: I guess the part that I don't understand is the individual - - -It is only for impeachment proceedings, that's why it's individual. Okay, thanks. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Ashida, so you are saying if we are going to keep the second sentence, then maybe we should add the Prosecuting Attorney, to be consistent? Unless we feel that he shouldn't have the same right as the Mayor or Council members; because he is subject to impeachment. MR. ASHIDA: I actually like this. The more I think about it, I like having this in there. What happens now is, if Council members get the impeachment petition filed against them, admittedly, some are very meritorious, the claims. We tell them up front that we cannot represent them; they have to hire their own. They go out, they hire an attorney, EN they prevail, and then, they come back and file a claim against the County for reimbursement. We have no control over that expense. Say they went to hire the top j ar, blue chip, $600 an hour guy like Ed Haitsuka; there is nothing we can do about that. We can say we are going to pay reasonable attorney fees, but what is reasonable? Under this provision, this will allow a certain degree of control at the onset. Say the Council member says, "I am being impeached, I want Special Counsel." Under the current process, the Council, by majority vote, authorizes Special Counsel; but the fees have to be stated ahead of time. They have to authorize the specific fees that are going to be paid. So actually by doing this, it does keep costs under control. What you are changing though, is that you are now affording these elected officials the right to Special Counsel in impeachment proceedings that they don't have now. MR. NAHALE -A: Even if there was merit against them. That's the trade -off, right? We are going to defend guys regardless. MR. ASHIDA: Right. For the most part, based on my recent experience, most of the claims have lacked merit. Like, for example, the last impeachment case that we had against a sitting Council member a few months ago; the petitioner, who filed the petition, had a grand total of one signature on his petition. But, it was filed at the Circuit Court, and because he was pro -se, they accepted it. The Council member had to hire an attorney, go to court, get it dismissed in front of Judge Nakamura. It was defective, because it just had one signature, but that is time and cost. You are right, Mr. Nahale -a, if you pass this you are buying the whole nine yards; the meritorious claims and the frivolous ones as well. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, this is introduced by request? CHR. HAITSUKA: I can't recall why I introduced this, but somebody sent us some kind of a request. MR. NAHALE -A: So if we are going to move it, I would ask that the section about impeachment be its own subsection. It is two different points. One is specifically related to conflict of interest, and the impeachment part is not connected to conflicts, right? MR. ASHIDA: Under the current Charter, whether the conflict is irrespective; it specifically says I cannot legally represent elected officials in impeachment proceedings. I don't understand why that exists. MR. NAHALE -A: I guess, to me, a simple fix is to allow you to defend Council members or the Mayor. MR. ASHIDA: There probably is a reason why I shouldn't do that, but I can't think of it now. It's been on the books forever, and nobody has ever questioned that. But, from what I've seen, the cases, since I've been Corporation Counsel, have been pretty straight forward. It basically just costs the taxpayers money because I can't remember in recent history there ever being a successful impeachment. 79 MR. NAHALE -A: Just because there is not a lot of research done, doesn't seem to be a compelling argument for it; I'm going to vote no, just not to clutter the Charter. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any more questions for Mr. Ashida? Is there any further discussion? MS. HONMA: Just for clarification, most of this is already written in the Charter someplace? MR. ASHIDA: Yes, subsection (a) currently exists. I think that is how it reads right now, just that; 2/3 rd vote authorizes hiring a Special Counsel where there is a necessity, and compensation has to be specified ahead of time. What this adds is in (b) it says that where I have been disqualified, or have a conflict, that Special Counsel could be hired. But that is sort of just redundant to (a) because that is why (a) exists, is because I have a conflict or I'm disqualified; that's why I do (a). But then the new thing is about Mayor or Council member being represented or getting Special Counsel. Because right now, in a separate section of the Charter it says that the Corporation Counsel's chief legal advisor shall represent the County officers in all matters except for impeachment proceedings. So, this sort of says, okay, you don't get the Corporation Counsel but if you are an elected official and somebody is trying to impeach you, you do get an attorney paid for by the taxpayers. That is the change that this is introducing. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any more questions for Mr. Ashida? Are there any more discussion? Thank you, Mr. Ashida. Is everyone ready for a vote? And I note the appearance of Ms. Kawauchi. The motion to approve CA -32 failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kawauchi, Kaulukukui, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Nahale -a, Shumway, and Unger. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have CA -33. CA -33: POSTING NOTICES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Amends Section 13 -20. The proposed amendment would require notices of all regular and special meetings of the council and boards and commissions to be conspicuously posted on the bulletin board of the Hawai'i County Building with an electronic notice linked on the appropriate council, board or commission webpage Postponed: November 6, 2009 :E CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -33 and forward it for second reading? I will make a second request; do I have a motion to approve CA -33? Two requests were made for a motion to approve CA -33 and forward it for second reading. No motion having been made, it appears that this Commission does not wish to move this proposed amendment forward. Due to the fact that no motion was made to approve CA -33, it fails. CHR. HAITSUKA: The final proposed amendment tonight is CA -35, relating to recall. CA -35: RECALL Replaces Article XII, Chapter 1, Sections 12 -1.1 through 12 -1.9. The purpose is to re -write Article XII, chapter 1, Section 12 -1.1 through 12 -1.9 on Recall to provide definitions, to define the petitioners' committee requirements, the petition, and timelines, to clarify petition sufficiency requirements, the recall procedure, the county clerk's duties, and the method to filling vacancies. Postponed: November 6, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -35 and forward it to second reading? Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -35 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman MS. JARMAN: Can we have the County Clerk since he had some comments. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow. MR. GOODENOW: Ken Goodenow, County Clerk. Also with me is Cory Saiki, the number two at the elections office. Pat Nakamoto apologizes, she had to leave. MS. JARMAN: Are you opposed to this in total, or are there just certain things that you would like to have changed? Could you explain? MR. GOODENOW: Well, I feel that perhaps I did go a little too far. This was the last one I wrote, and I was getting tired, I think. You'll notice on the other ones I just say we provide comments, this one I actually said we are opposed to the current language. Just in a general way, it is a lot to put in the Charter. I thought it was a little confusing and byzantine, is the word I would use. You look at Honolulu's, it is much simpler. You are putting all this in here. Then my specific requirements, I list one through nine. I think m the current version reads much better, it is much clearer tome. That was just an overall comment in addition to the specific concerns. Communication 114 is where you will find those comments. Cory, do you want to say something? MS. SAKI: Pat and I did go over this, and there was a few concerns that we did have regarding timelines. I think there is one area in here that states that we would need to put on an election within 45 days. My experience, that would be impossible; 45 days, by law right now, we are required to mail out the overseas ballots. If we are required to run an election within 45 days, then we wouldn't be complying with the Federal law to get the ballots out to the overseas, the military. MR. GOODENOW: I think an alternative to that would be that we would just have to wait until we got the overseas ballots back, 45 days. So I suppose we could, but we wouldn't be announcing the results on the 45th day, we would have to say, well, you are going to have to wait 15 plus days. Kind of the standard time for an election, the minimum time, is 60 days. Even that now, is being called into question because brand new Federal law that passed that does require that they have 45 days to return a ballot. MR. SHUMWAY: My question is for Ms. Jarman. What was the genesis of this? MS. JARMAN: I did it at the request of a member of the public. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I'll be voting, no. I don't think the system is broken. I was really open to looking at this connected to four -year council terms, like several members of the public asked; to kind of upgrade our whole entire system. But alone, I won't support it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow. MR. GOODENOW: I was just going to comment on that. It is six months, right. If it's less than six months, if someone did get recalled in March of an election year; that would be a substantial amount of money. If you do pass it, maybe a year would be better. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Is this something that happens a lot, or hardly ever? In as long as you have been working for the County, has there been recall petitions? MS. SAKI: I've been in elections for ten years, and I've never gone through a recall. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Thank you very much. The motion to approve CA -35 failed due to the following vote: WA Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So that concludes that section of our agenda. Next we have Reports. REPORTS CHR. HAITSUKA: We don't have any reports so let's move on to the next item which is Referrals for Executive Session. REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no referrals. Next item on our agenda is announcements. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Our next regular meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 8, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. So far we've gotten through all of the first readings. I don't think there is anything else outstanding. So, all of the first readings have been done. The next step is going to be a second reading, I think. We don't have enough interest in going out to further public hearings. I don't know if we need to have more than one meeting in January. One thing I was going to propose is that the County Council is going to have a meeting in Kona on January 22, 2010, which is a Friday. We could potentially use their facilities out in Kona on the day before, which is Thursday, January 21, 2010. So that is a possibility, having a meeting out in Kona. I don't know what everybody's availability is. So, our options are; keeping the meeting as scheduled, which would be on January 8, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo, or some other day, having a special meeting in Kona. Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I have a problem on the 8th and I would support having our next meeting in Kona, personally. MS. HONMA: I'm out on the 8th as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: How about anybody else, as far as availability on the 8th? MS. JARMAN: I'm available, but I'm willing to change. MS. KAWAUCHI: I'm available, but I'm willing to change. W MR. KAULUKUKUI: I'm unavailable on the Stn MR. NAHALE -A: I'm available, but willing to change. I agree that Kona would probably be appropriate. MR. UNGER: I like the Kona idea. CHR. HAITSUKA: So would everybody be agreeable to having a Special meeting on January 21, 2010 beginning at 1:30 p.m. in Kona. MS. HONMA: I can't be there. CHR. HAITSUKA: Anyone else who can't be there on the 21st of January? It would be at the Keauhou Sheraton. Do I have a motion to have a special meeting held on January 21, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Kona at the Keauhou, Sheraton? MS. JARMAN: Does it have to be at 1:30 p.m. or does anyone have any conflict with having it in the morning rather than the afternoon, so that if it goes long, we won't be into the evening. To me, any time that day is fine, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if we could start earlier. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any comments about starting earlier? MR. SHUMWAY: I like that idea. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have any problems with the facility? Mr. Goodenow. MR. GOODENOW: Normally, because we have the meeting the next day, we usually always have it at noon. I doubt it will be a problem, but I suppose there could be an odd chance that someone booked it that morning, but I highly doubt it. We always reserve it from noon the day before. So it should be available. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: As long as it is after 10:00 a.m. I have kid duty in the morning. CHR. HAITSUKA: How about 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 2010. Ms. Jarman moved to hold the next meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission on January 21, 2010 at 10:00 am in Kona at the Sheraton Keauhou Resort and Spa. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by The following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kealoha, and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, to clarify; that replaces the regularly scheduled meeting, right? MR. NAHALE -A: I can't leave Hilo until 8:00 a.m. so it would be better to go 10:30 a.m. MS. KAWAUCHI: I was just about to say that 10:00 a.m. could be cutting it close for morning duties. MR. SHUMWAY: How about 11:00 a.m.? MS. KAWAUCHI: 11:00 a.m. would be safer. I'm sorry. MR. SHUMWAY: If the purpose is to get us out before too late, then 11:00 a.m. should be fine. CHR. HAITSUKA: So do we need to reconsider that motion? MR. HOOKANO: Unanimous consent. CHR. HAITSUKA: So it's going to be at 11:00 a.m. on January 21, 2010 in Kona. The next item on the agenda is adjournment, do we have a motion? ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 7:00 p.m., Ms. Jarman moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. W Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission 0