Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2010-01-21.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION 11th Session Thursday, January 21, 2010 Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa 78 -128 Ehukai Street Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 96740 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good morning everyone, and thank you for your patience. Today is January 21, 2010, the time is approximately 11:29 a.m. and I call this special meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. We are at the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa in Kona. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner (11:55 a.m) Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner Excused: Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chair Ms. Daphne Honma, Commissioner Ms. Casey Jarman, Commissioner Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Also Present: Mr. Bill Takaba, Managing Director (Hilo) Mr. Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel Ms. Nancy Crawford, Finance Director (Hilo) Mr. Randy Kurohara, Dept. of Research and Development Director Mr. Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk Ms. Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor (Hilo) Ms. Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator Ms. Cori Saiki, Elections Program Specialist Mr. Levi Hookano, Legal Specialist Ms. Donna Leonard, Council Services Ms. Glynis Yamada, Council Services Drake Okinishi, Legislative Aide Valerie Victorine, Administrative Assistant (Hilo) Ms. Manu Hanano Council Aide (Waimea) Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS CHR. HAITSUKA: Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that the public testimony is limited to the items that are on our agenda and that testimony will be limited to three- minutes per agenda item. I would also like to remind the Commissioners that they will not be allowed to ask questions of persons giving testimony. However, if any of the Commissioners wish to have someone present during our deliberations and discussion today, please let me know and I will ask the testifier to be available. Our first testifier will be from Waimea, and this person will be testifying by telephone due to a technical difficulty. MS. HANANO: Good morning, this is Maim from the Waimea Council Office, and I have one testifier here this morning. My testifier here is Terry Markovich and she is speaking on CA -15, the Land Fund. TERRY MARKOVICH (At this time, Terry Markovich came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. MARKOVITCH: Aloha Charter Commission members and mahalo nui for all of your effort in working and debating on all of these issues. I too, am a Commissioner. I am with the Open Space and Public Access Commission. This has been my number one issue to address. I feel really honored to review all of the lands that we have coming up for acquisition. Of course, we would like to acquire them all, but it is really a tough decision to pick out the properties for us to even put a number one and number two; to rate them, because all of the Big Island is really special. I just wanted to remind us all of our State motto; "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness." It means to me that we need to be vigilant in protecting our `aina, which I believe generously, blesses us with sustenance for our bodies, and invigorates our minds through its natural beauty. I ask your generosity when considering this minimum amount to set aside for our land preservation, and retain the 2% which is what the majority of voters voted for and so many people have worked so hard to maintain and promote. We need this amount, I believe, for our matching funds; which are so important. So, I ask your generous consideration when you vote on this. I believe we are at a turning point, economically, and it gives us the opportunity to plan for the future development of our island and retain one of our greatest assets; open space. Being inundated with our Country's expanded military presence and our isolation; I believe it behooves us to make a stand to retain our Hawaiian agricultural heritage along with our natural beauty. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much, Ms. Markovich. Do we have anyone else in Waimea to testify? Alright, we have no one else in Waimea. Is there anyone in Hilo to testify today? 2 MS. VICTORINE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, we have three testifiers here in Hilo this morning. Our first testifier in Hilo this morning is Ms. Cory Harden. She is here to speak on four items on your agenda; CA -7, CA -15, CA -17 and CA -31. CHR. HAITSUKA: Good morning, Ms. Harden. CORY HARDEN (At this time Cory Harden, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HARDEN: Thank you again for your work. First, I support CA -7, for Recall Procedures. It addresses concerns that we have some of the strictest recall procedures in the State by making it easier. It drops the residence address requirement, which has brought many problems when people write Place instead of Street. It reduces the number of signatures and the number of people needed to vote in a recall election. It also makes things easier for County staff by giving them more time to review supplemental petitions. On CA -15, the Land Fund; please put this backup to 2 %. You have got to ask how high a priority is preserving our land, water, and air. Well, about air, they say it is not important until you don't have any, and the same could be said about our land and water. Ms. Kawauchi, at an earlier meeting, talked about how her family used open space for gathering and fishing when they had hard times; we could all face very hard times is disaster or rising fuel prices cuts off our food supply pipeline. Also, I think the timing is very important. If we don't start saving our land now, it may be too late. I hope some of my photos came through. They show what happened to Honolulu. It shows in 1910, a view with taro patches and Diamond Head in the background. In 1920, there are rice fields, with Diamond Head in the background. In 1930, you start to see a few one story buildings, maybe one or two, two story buildings. In 1940, you start seeing five or six story buildings; maybe about five or six of them. In 1960, suddenly you have ten to twelve story buildings; I can see about 10 in my photo. In 1970, you can't even count how many 10, 15, 20 story buildings. So that's 60 years. That is two or three generations. That's how fast it happens that the land is gone. Note that the proposal is now 0.5 %, but Maui and the other neighbor islands are doing 1 %. I believe that our island has more land than all the other islands combined. So I say that we need a larger land fund. We also have a lot of unspoiled land compared to all the other islands; so we are kind of a magnet for people who want to profit from land. I know there is a concern from the Finance Department saying that 3/4 of the budget is fixed costs, and we don't want to put another fixed cost in there with the Land Fund from the Charter. But I wonder why it's okay to have a fixed cost for borrowing, to build human infrastructure, but not okay to have a fixed cost for preserving natural infrastructure. If you tried to replace natural infrastructure; like if you tried to replace a tree, a tree generates oxygen, holds soil, catches water, provides shade, and provides habitat and food for birds and insects. What would it cost to build that? You couldn't even do that, so I think it is a good move to spend the money for the 2% Land Fund to preserve our land. On CA -17, I support that; reapportionment to redistricting. I know there was a great controversy over the last redistricting. Like I said before, someone remortgaged their house to file a lawsuit against it and failed. It went on for a long time; it was terrible. So, I support adhering to criteria instead of just being guided by criteria. I support having a written report explaining how the redistricting commission adheres to the criteria. I support requiring public hearings. I support having more time for this extremely demanding task because the reapportionment determines for the next decade, whether citizens are fairly represented. On CA -31, the department of agriculture and energy, I support the concept. As I mentioned before we are right before a food disaster. We only have a few days supply in our markets. Nearly all of our food is shipped in and our shipping prices are going up. Bulldozing and building are destroying agricultural land and invasive species are attacking our food crops. As you know, there is a County agricultural plan being developed; I believe by the Kohala Center and County Research and Development. I went to a recent meeting on this plan and I was really impressed; there were about 75 people there and they seemed very knowledgeable about the plan. They made very detailed and insightful comments, so that is going along great. One of the big concerns was there weren't enough people to implement the plan. So, I support having agriculture and energy specialists within Research and Development Department, which would give benefits with less cost. If they are in the Research and Development Department, it would make it easier to coordinate initiatives in various areas; agriculture, energy, economic health. I suggest having the amendment include a citizen advisory committee or commission; one each for agriculture and energy. I note there is already a County Energy Commission. People were saying the Federal government and the State have a lot of control over agriculture and energy. But the County also has a lot of control through the Planning Commission, Planning Department, County Council and Open Space Commission. Remember also, the County recently voted to ban genetically modified taro and coffee as a means of control. Also, if the County has staff and resources dedicated to agriculture and energy that will help us research, apply for, and attract Federal, State and private funds for these concerns. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much, Ms. Harden. Can we have our next speaker in Hilo please? MS. VICTORINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next speaker in Hilo this morning is Mr. John Olsen. He is here representing himself, and he is here to speak on CA -15. CHR. HAITSUKA: Good morning, Mr. Olsen. JOHN OLSEN (At this time John Olsen came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. OLSEN: Good morning Commissioners, and thank you. I'm here basically to make a comment on the 2% Land Fund. It is of concern to me that whatever changes may or may not be made to appear on the ballot from the original that was passed by the vote of the people; when we go to the polls this next time around, there is not going to be any M mechanism to compare what the changes are as opposed to what we voted for the last time around. That is a major concern to me. People may vote for it, not understanding. Of course, I'm quite aware that one of our council people said that people didn't know what they were voting for when they created the land fund. I am suspicious that without some mechanism in place, we will yet again call these changes into question. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Our next testifier in Hilo, please. MS. VICTORINE: Mr. Chairman, our next and last testifier here in Hilo this morning is Ms. Colleen Schrandt. She is here representing the Legislative Auditor's office and she is speaking on CA -14. MS. KAWAUCHI: Before Ms. Schrandt starts, I had a question. Earlier, you said that if we wanted to-- although we can't take questions now of a person who submits communications or are testifying at this time - -ask if they would remain to provide responses to questions during the time that amendments are brought; that we should let you know. I would like to ask if Mr. Olsen would be so kind as to remain in the audience, in order for me to ask questions later on when we talk about CA -15. CHR. HAITSUKA: Can we have Mr. Olsen remain until we discuss CA -15, is he is able to? MS. VICTORINE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, he did acknowledge that he will be waiting. MS. KAWAUCHI: Thank you. COLLEEN SCHRANDT (At this time Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. SCHRANDT: I am testifying now, because I would like to ask that CA -14 be postponed. Because there have been some technical difficulties, I wanted to go ahead and make that request now, through testimony. The reason I would like to have it postponed now, is because I only received Mr. Ashida's correspondence yesterday, and I would like for my legal counsel to be able to comment. Because you only have six members present today, and because of the relationship between my legal counsel and Mr. Shumway, I am concerned that would bring some quorum issues; so I would like to request that you postpone. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Ms. Schrandt. Are there any other testifiers in Hilo? MS. VICTORINE: We have no other testifiers, just Ms. Nancy Crawford from the Finance Department in the audience. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's have Sammie Stanbro come up. Thank you, good morning. SAMMIE STANBRO (At this time Sammie Stanbro, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. STANBRO: Good afternoon, Charter Commissioners. This is the first time I've spoken in front of you. I should be at the High School right now; I jumped in my car and fled here, so I am going to be speaking and then leave. But I did want to point out to you some of the basic things about the history of the 2% and why we are here, and how we got here. There were actually three things that happened. When we first started with this, an $11,000 poll was done on this island before the Trust for Public Land would get involved in helping us work on this. That poll showed - -and it was like three inches thick, it was done off island from California - -75% of the people of this island wanted, not a 1 %, but a 2% amount of our tax dollars to go to land protection. It blew us away, we were really excited about that because the public was saying, no, we just don't want to go with what Oahu, Kauai and Maui had done; we need more, because we are a bigger island. The second step we did was to get signatures. It took a long time, it was hard work; it was painfully hard work. You may have heard the jokes and stories about it. If one letter or one number was not right in a person's signature, they threw it out. So, we had to keep going back and getting more and more signatures. But, it proved fruitful. There were high school kids that actually registered to vote because there was something that they could connect with that was on the ballot that referred to their future. I was really pretty exciting to see; so they could have a say so in the future of their island. The third thing was the actual voting. The turnout for the people who voted for the 2% was really, really amazing. This was only a grass -root effort; there was no money in it. We hand made our signs and yet the public said, this was a most important thing to us. All of the polls that are done with the tourists - -if you are talking about economics - -every single poll when the tourists are polled about this island, open space is the most important thing. So, protecting our prime open space is really obvious for the economics of this island. I just wanted to point out the history of this to you; why we are where we are and how we have worked so hard. It's really amazing to me how something can go to a vote, and then can get changed by a handful of people to balance a budget or that kind of thing. But, anyway, it was important for me to speak to you today. I would like for you to support the Save or Land Citizen Committee; their suggestions. I think they are really important. I am a coffee farmer, I've put land aside. I have land that is committed to conservation, so I put my money where my mouth is, as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Mr. Replogle. Good morning, sir. JOHN REPLOGLE (At this time John Replogle came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. REPLOGLE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you forgiving your time to this. I am hereto speak on CA -15. I would like to seethe 2% remain as part of this Charter amendment, not 0.5 %. As Ms. Stanbro just pointed out, a lot of work and effort went into this. It's not to complain about the R work, it was a work of love. The people came out, they supported it; they did it. It was voted in by 63% of the vote. To shed some light on that, the Mayor, Mr. Kenoi, was elected by 56% of the vote, Mr. Onishi by 59 %, Ms. Naeole by 51 %, and Mr. Greenwell by 47% of the vote. Nobody is coming down and saying we should replace them because it was only 53% of the vote. The people voted, and this came from the bottom up. It was our citizens speaking for open space. I urge you to keep the 2% intact, and don't disenfranchise the people who voted and brought this about. It is actually participation in our government and that is what makes democracy and our government work. Where the 0.5% came from, I have no idea. I was surprised at that, but 2% of whatever our budget is, is still 2% of that. It goes up and down according to the budget. People have realized that this is like an evolutionary process. We have seen what has happened on other islands; what's happening around the planet. We have to start taking care of our special places. I was on the first Open Space Commission when we went around the island and collected all the original places. People came from everywhere. We had over 350 places that we had to go through, categorize, and select and put in an order. But it was amazing to see how much the people cared about this, and for that I really urge you to make it 2% again. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, sir. Next we have Karen Clarkson. Good morning. KAREN CLARKSON (At this time Karen Clarkson came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. CLARKSON: Good morning Commissioners. I am here on behalf of the Save Our Land Citizens Committee, which I was a member of, and the thousands of people who signed the petitions and went out and voted for the 2% for land fund believing that their vote meant something. I would like to believe that you will honor their vote, and keep it 2 %. We will have to vote on it again, and please give us the opportunity again to say what we want. People are looking forward, they realize that there are good times and bad times; but it's just like saving for your child's college education. That is something sacred, and you dedicate a certain amount of you income or whatever to that cause and we believe that it's the best thing for our future generation. I would like to speak a little bit on the economic value open space. As a real estate broker, I know how important it is for property values. It is very short sighted to look only at the budget now and not realize and study the fact that wherever there are open spaces around the country go up; and therefore tax revenues go up. I had a client tell me that about Colorado where he moved from and how property values shot up around Boulder where a big open space was created around the city. So, I hope you will look at the long term, and not just short term constraints we are under with our budget. Think about what really is the best for our future. That includes our economic future. Thank you very much. 7 CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Clarkson. Mr. Michael Reimer. Good morning, Mr. Reimer. MICHAEL REIMER (At this time Michael Reimer, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. REIMER: Good morning, distinguished Commission members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Today, I will talk about the Land Fund. I notice that the Commission seems to have placed itself in the position of the great compromiser; hoping to keep the Land Fund going, and yet trying to adhere to the Mayor's concern about a balanced budget. I can extend that and say now I see you as a great budget compromiser too. I don't think really that's a role that you want to move into. The Land Fund is an interesting thing in that it was based on percentages. Percentages, of course, move up and down with the amount of revenues present. I know that a balanced budget, in the minds of any administration, would be to have available to spend at least as much money this year, or more than you did in the previous years. But, as we can see now, that is not always the case. I would like to make a suggestion to you on the land fund. I do not believe 2% is excessive, but I wish you would be able to write this Charter amendment so that it would give the voters a choice - -it would take some clever wordsmithing, but I'm sure you can do it, or Ms. Hecht would be glad to help you with it - -to be able to allow the voter to choose if they want to maintain the 2 %, or let it regress to 0.5 %. The voters did vote on it once, I think give them another opportunity to do so. Thank you so much for your time. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Doug Perrine. Good morning, sir. DOUG PERRINE (At this time Doug Perrine, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. PERRINE: Aloha. Ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to remind you that when you vote on CA -15, you will be making two very important and critical choices regarding the future of this island. One is the very type of government we have here. Will it be an oligarchy where decisions are made by a small group of powerful people? Or, will it be a democracy? This is in question already, because the last two voter initiatives were, after a very short time, effectively overturned by people in power. By forwarding CA -15, you will allow the people, democratically, to decide how their tax dollars are spent, rather than leaving that decision to a small group of powerful people. The second issue, of course, is what is going to be the future of our most precious, beautiful, valuable lands on this island. I and perhaps some of the other people here believe is the most beautiful piece of land in the entire world. We have seen, in the short period of time that the 2% funding mechanism has been in place for the land fund, that amount of money is totally inadequate to buy even the lands on the highest priority list; 0.5% is going to allow us to purchase almost nothing. With 2% we will get a little bit. Some people will say we don't have that much money. That is ridiculous; it's 2% of the County budget. The County is spending millions on golf subsidies, it is spending a lot of money to support two brass bands, and I might mention that we may loose our TAT funds because of that. Last week Cindy Evans, our State Representative, pointed out that she was going to vote for the State confiscating the TAT funds because the County obviously wasn't trimming its budget very much if it was still supporting these bands. But, it actually falls on you ladies and gentlemen, now to decide this. I would like to ask each of you to imagine a time, not very far in the future, say twenty years from now, when you are speaking to your grandkids, and taking a drive around the island and looking at our most beautiful beaches and other scenic areas and saying, "Well, you know, when I was a kid we used to surf there; we used to have a picnic at that place, that used to be all natural there." And the kid asks why is it all paved now, why can't we get in, it is supposed to have public access, but you have to be here by 6:00 a.m. or the parking lot is full; why can't we use this place anymore? Any you are going to say, "We didn't want to spend the money, but hey, I spend half price for golf, and we had some good marches at the parade." I don't think our grandkids are going to buy that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Mr. Shoup. DAVID SHOUP (At this time Shoup, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. SHOOP: Aloha Charter Commissioners. I would also like to thank you for the work that you do. I also would like to speak to CA -15, the Land Fund. Again, I encourage you to put it back to 2 %. I think there is nothing more important to this island, present and future, than preserving land. When times get tough, we have to deal with that. We might have to raise some taxes. I don't like it; nobody likes it, but I think this is more important, and I strongly encourage you to move it back to 2 %. Another comment is, it's exactly when times are difficult that it is the best opportunity for procuring land. With everybody's prices going up, and everyone is developing, things get much more expensive. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, sir. Next we have Margaret Wille. Good morning. MARGARET WILLE (At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILLE: Greetings, Margaret Wille from Waimea. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I did hand in some written testimony on a number of the items, although I'm not going to take them necessarily in the order I have them on this one sheet of paper. I'll start with the land fund, since that is the issue that the other testifiers have been discussing. I support the land fund, and I support it at 2 %. Just in terms of sort of some legal scholarship, the fact that, what is the role of the referendum. This is one way, in the law, that you give the public the right to create a law. By saying you can do this very burdensome thing, but oh, you can do it, but we can just take it away; we can change it just makes it a nullity. I really believe in the rule of law, and that's what makes us a civilized culture. This is one of the few areas where you really provide the public a right. 9 I am also a strong advocate of eco- tourism. I think that the biggest economic value this county has is its beauty; is its land. The fastest growing sector of tourism is ecotourism. If you happened to have read a recent New York Times article about the county, it's all about connecting to the land. That is where we really have a future. It is those other countries that are focusing on that that their tourism industry is going up, not down. I do think that if you are going to compromise, 0.5% is like a slap in the face. Anything below 1 %, I find bonding authorities look at it as; is it there, or is it not there. It's just a low level of commitment. I think there is a question in terms of how does one deal with it in terms of the current moratorium; if you do continue it, does that go into effect for next year or does it go into effect after the moratorium? I think you ought to address that question. I'm now going to talk about several proposed amendments together. One is CA -37, which is changing the department of research and development to the department of economic development. I think this is one that would take a 2/3 vote, but I'll start with that one. Then I'll go on to the ag and energy department. On CA -37, I feel strongly that I oppose this. I think the administrations attempt at sort of a more narrow focus of economic development, is really a way to sort of focus the commitment of guiding the county through these economic times. I think we all support that motive and believe there is that commitment. But, I think that it is very short sighted, and you guys are supposed to be the far sighted entity. Even in a recession, the research and foresight; we shouldn't be giving up on that. If you go to any business seminars or conferences, this is the time when you really want to invest in research. When you cash in on that, you are sort of looking at how we survive in the short term, rather than as a sustainable county. I also dislike removing what is subsection 6 -8.3 (b) which says that the County will provide leadership, economic, social and cultural proposals which enhance and improve the county's community. I have real trouble with taking that out. The whole idea of prosperity is that it is not just about what money you have. It's what quality of life you have, it's the culture and the economy and the environment. Again, I really believe this was well intended, but I disagree with doing it. Second, there is the proposal - -I think it is CA- 31 - -to initiate the agriculture and energy as a separate department. I started out promoting that, again in the same vein that ag and energy are really ag independence, energy independence and have to be at the forefront of our interests. But, at the same time, I think it is the level of commitment, not whether or not it has its own department. Probably, if this was going on five years ago, and we could set it up during a more prosperous time, I would continue to support that. In department head, Brad Kurohara's letter, he talks about one reason that we shouldn't go ahead with a new ag and energy department is that the current one is functioning at an efficient and effective level. I don't agree with that. I think that we need to do way more, but I don't think putting the money into establishing another layer of bureaucracy is the way to do it. If there were a way to have a really strong voice in terms of that commitment, I would like to see it; but I leave it up to you to figure out how one would finance doing it. Research and development means things overlap. Too much is done in silos; I think it is good to put an emphasis on it. 10 What bothers me - -and this may seem like something small to you all and it ties in to CA- 30, the boards and commissions - -is having a web site for each commission and board. I was just back there giving Randy a hard time about his Communication 130 saying they don't want to do a web site for each commission and board; which is basically two, ag and energy. So I feel that message is inconsistent with saying this research and development is promoting this ag and energy agenda. I could bring in probably 10 people today, who would set one up on a volunteer basis. Energy is a great citizen advisory committee. It doesn't say you have to have the most phenomenal web site. It just says you put one up, you put your minutes, you can develop it over time; talk to Karen. I'm just really disturbed about that. I also see that Tom Brown wrote a Communication about that; Communication 125 saying they don't really want to have to set up web site. Well, they need a website to put up their time tables. You can go into Word Press and set on up in 15 minutes. Now, I know doing things on the County level are different, but I find that message inconsistent and I feel very strongly that there should be an ag commission and an energy commission within research and development; and they should have a web site, and people can blog on it, and put in information, and you can build on it. I've said it before, so I don't want to spend much time on it; I support Communication 136, which is the combination of CA -9, CA -23 and CA -30. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts and Levi in putting that together and coming out with something that is practical. Boards and Commissions, this is CA -24. There are plusses and minuses on this. I don't agree with having each Council member having priority over designating one position on each board. Boards are not necessarily nine people, they could be more; they could be less. I feel strongly that board appointments should be relevant knowledge and diversity of background. CHR. HAITSUKA: Excuse me Mr. Wille, CA -24 is not on our agenda. It didn't pass the first reading at the last meeting. MS. WILLE: Okay, sorry about that; I guess that was tied into what happened on CA -30. On the department of water supply, changing the name and making it manager and chief, if you were to put this as the first item to vote, people would say, "What are you saying and what are you doing this for ?" No one would read on. It just doesn't seem to be that significant to put on as a Charter amendment. I obviously feel strongly about CA -26, in terms of conservation. I feel that this is a vision and helps provide that recognition of our island and its culture. I think that will do. Thank you for your time. One thing I would ask, in terms of CA -15, to the extent that this controversial; I feel that if at the next meeting we are going to have more members, then it should be held over and the vote postponed until the following meeting. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Next we have Mr. Jake Jacobs. 11 JAKE JACOB S (At this time Jake Jacobs came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. JACOBS: Good morning, thank you for this opportunity. I will make a short statement. I agree with pretty much everything that everyone else said about CA -15. My name is Jake Jacobs. I have lived in Kona for 34 years. When I think about how little has been done in all that time to provide parks and protect open space, it absolutely amazes me. A few people have made a lot of money, and every year more and more of Kona looks like a southern California strip mall. I'm just an ordinary, out of work, homeowner with a mortgage. My property taxes are about $800 a year. If the 2% Land Fund were reinstated, that would only amount to $16 a year or $1.33 a month. That is one thing that nobody mentions. When you talk about raising taxes, $1.33 a month is what is would cost me. Even without a j ob, I can tell you that if the county has to increase my property by less than $2 dollars a month to make up for the land fund, it won't make any difference as to whether I can keep my house or not. I urge you to have the wisdom and decency to put the 2% fund on the ballot. It was and is what the people you represent wanted and voted for. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much, sir. Next we have Susan Dursin. SUSAN DURSIN (At this time Susan Dursin came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. DURSIN: Thank you for hearing us. I am testifying on CA -12, for the Hawaii County League of Women Voters; basically on the information that is required of petition signers. As we see it, the fact of having the name, the signature, which is to be reasonably similar to the voter registration signature and also the name being reasonably similar, the month and day of birthday, and a four digit social security number. This really advances the cause of democracy. The experience of having the physical address included has not been very good. It amounted to hundreds and hundreds of signatures not being verified on the 2 %. And it just is an additional problem here in this county; not so much elsewhere where people have street numbers and know what the street is called. As far as a countywide initiative, you do not need to ascertain which district he or she lives in. I think it is very good to increase the clerk's time to determine the sufficiency. I know that with thousands of signatures, it does certainly take time. I would like to speak for myself on CA -15. I am definitely in support of the 2% the way that it is written as a proposal. I am not unaware of the economic problems obviously, but there certainly are a couple of considerations; the dwindling availability of high priority lands, and also the intense level of interest and enthusiasm that existed for this initiative for establishing the fund. Some people argue, of course, that people wouldn't pass it now in such dire economic times. I just say to you, there is one way to find out, and that is to put it on the ballot. I try to think that if this doesn't go on the ballot now, what are we facing? Do we wait another 10 years, or do we try to work another initiative? For those of us who took part in the original, that is certainly overwhelming. 12 It takes up a good part of your life for a very long period of time. As time goes on, there are a lot less properties available and they also will cost more. So, in any case, the land fund is democracy in action, and not to allow it to go forward as 2% indicates that the voters did not know what they were talking about or they didn't understand any of it. So, I urge you, please, let it go forward and appear on the ballot. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Next, we have Marian Wilkens. MARIAN WILKENS (At this time Marian Wilkens came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILKENS: I did put this in to the Commission as written testimony, and my husband and I wrote it together, so he is here too. We do urge you, as everyone else has, to reestablish the 2% in your Charter amendment, which is a great idea to have it in the Charter so it can't be tinkered with constantly; which is what will happen. I did want to point out one thing that I don't think other people have brought out in their testimony. We know there is an argument about how we can't keep up the land, we can't keep up our parks and things properly with what we already have; so therefore we should not acquire anything more. We agree that there should be more done at both the State and County level as far as keeping up parks, but we don't have to develop every piece of land that has been or will be acquired. The goal is to secure these lands while they are still available and at a price the County can manage. It would be very short sighted to look at only what we can do today with the land. We have already seen what has happened on the coast here. We have lost Kohanaiki, we have lost `O'oma, and I want to tell you, I'm not a real big beach goer myself, but one day I was out on a boat looking back to the beach at Kohanaiki, and I could count over 100 cars there. That is never going to happen again. This is before the development started. Now, that is passed forever for the families that went there. We have got to do something before it is too late. 2% is the minimum. We have got to do that for our grandchildren who live on this island; and for your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Thank you very much, and thank you for your hard work on all of these issues. I think you have some great things going here. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Mr. Wilkens. GEORGE WILKENS (At this time George Wilkens came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILKENS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Charter Commission. I was just going to sit here and nod proudly while my wife gave our joint testimony, but listening to things that were said earlier, especially the remarks by Mr. Doug Perrine who very articulately said everything I was going to say and said it much better than I could. l want to bring up the words democracy and oligarchy again and with the definition which is directly from Black's Law Dictionary; which really is the international standard in democratic nations for what the law is all about. Black's Law Dictionary says, "Democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as distinguished from a monarchy, an 13 aristocracy, or an oligarchy." The initiative group that managed to get the 2% land fund on the ballot, and the citizens who managed to pass it, were exercising democracy in its finest form we think. The move by the County Council and the Mayor to essentially rape it and reduce it to an almost meaningless low amount is a more true definition of the worst of an oligarchy, which Black's defines as, "A form of government wherein the administration of affairs is lodged in the hands of a few persons." There is an enormous difference in law between the democracy that we practice and the oligarchy that almost destroyed the land fund. What its effect is now, in advance of any Charter amendment, is that it reduced Hawaii's contributions to the land fund from the highest in the State, 2 %, to a tie for the lowest in the State, 0.5 %. That is not democracy, and you are the people who can put it before the voters of this island to correct this non - democratic action. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, sir. Next we have Debbie Hecht. DEBBIE HECHT (At this time Debbie Hecht came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HECHT: My name is Debbie Hecht. I am going to speak first on CA -7, which is recall procedures. The recall provides accountability and is a check and balance on government. It also provides some degree of transparency. I agree with the provisions that are before you, but I there is one thing that I think was overlooked. Right now, in the existing Charter, there is a 30 -day period to collect signatures. That is impossible. It is just not possible to do that. I would recommend that in the case of recalling a Mayor, that there be 150 days to collect signatures, and in the case of a Council member, 90 days; 30 days is impossible and that negates the whole idea of that amendment. So that would be my recommendation. On CA -12, which is to change Article XV, which is initiation of amendment or revisions of the Charter, I want to apologize for sending you such an extensive mess of papers. But, I thought it was important that you understand why the League of Women Voters went to work to change initiative and referendum. You can see that what I am advocating for is to remove the requirement for residence address to qualify signatures on petition initiatives for Charter amendments. We request you return to the originally proposed language. The goals of these initiative petitions should be to validate signatures, not to disqualify or invalidate signatures and disqualify voters. It is as difficult process for the clerk's office because their system uses social security numbers for access; a very, very antiquated system. When we started the 2% petition, I brought up to them that the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974 made it illegal to ask for full social security numbers. The clerk's office, therefore, has to manually go to each voter's file to validate his or her signature. There are three reasons why the League of Women's Voters felt residence addresses were unnecessary. There is a manual review of signatures; they have to compare signatures. A residence address should be unnecessary information for the clerk to qualify voter's signatures because they need to verify information from the file anyways. No residence address. Many people in rural areas do not know their residence address because they use post office boxes. 14 It was amazing during the petition drive for the 2% how many people did not know their address. I did not know my address; so that is pretty indicative. The residence address has no match. We had over 2,000 out of 8,300 that were disqualified because there was not residence match. That means, according to Connie Kiriu's explanation to us, that they were disqualified because avenue, street, or place was left off or maybe somebody got a number wrong. To me, I thought the exercise would be to validate signatures and qualify voters. So, anyway, they need to look at the voter's file anyways to check this out. You know, when you get the confirmation of your voter information, I get mine at my P.O. Box. They have my P.O. Box number and they also have my residence address. In 2006, we needed to collect 4, 846 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot to set aside 2% of property taxes. We actually collected an additional 1,500 signatures that the clerk decided not to accept. So, out of well over 8, 000 signatures, 20% were disqualified for residence address. So we would like you to leave this one alone and not require residence addresses. I'll move on. I was the campaign coordinator for the Save Our Land Citizen Committee in 2006. So we have been going back and forth on this issue for now four years. I never meant for this to be my life's work, but it seems to be turning out to be that. We respectfully request that you reinstate the 2% land fund and that you honor the vote of 63% of your friends and neighbors who voted in 2006. Today you will consider CA -15 on the land fund. Also on the agenda is Communication 105, submitted by the Kenoi administration. What the administration wants here is to take the Charter amendment that I submitted on behalf of the voters, and substitute their version. I believe the Commission may have a procedural problem. In Communication 105 the director Nancy Crawford's submittal letter, stamped December 1, 2009, she says, "I am submitting the attached draft Charter amendment as a substitute for CA -15 proposal. It is important to note the date as December 1, 2009, because the Commission's rule under Section 9 (b), Proposed Amendments to the Charter, says, "Any proposed amendment submitted after October 21, 2009, may be considered only upon a 2/3 vote of the entire Commission. I believe that what the amendment is submitting as Communication 105, is a new substantial amendment and you will need 2/3 vote of the entire Commission, or nine votes, to place this on the agenda as a Charter Amendment before you can consider it. It needs to be stated for the public that the great strength of Charter amendments is that they cannot be changed by the Council or the Mayor; only by a vote of the people. We took this step so that the land fund would be removed from the yearly budget wrangling, and that we would be sure that the deposits would be made twice a year. The Kenoi administration version does not contain several very important provisions. (1) Property Taxes be place in the land fund twice per year after property taxes are collected and the land fund account would be an interest bearing account. (2) It is very important that if a vacancy occurs, how commissioners are recommended; they should be from each district and Council members know best in each district who can best represent that area. It is so important to have a balanced county -wide perspective and not just be the Mayor's political appointees. This commission is so important because it is one of the few that 15 recommends how large sums of money are spent. The list of lands that can be acquired is very important. The provision that they seek matching funds which sometimes gets done now and sometimes doesn't, is also very important. It also guarantees that this commission gets staff, it provides the duties and responsibilities, and it describes the prioritized land list that comes from the commission each year, and also a report to the Mayor. These are the most important functions of this commission. It clearly states that the funds can be used for acquisition only, and not for maintenance or development of park lands which is a parks and recreation responsibility. Mayor Kim had asked the commission to recommend to the Council to use the 2% for park maintenance. His suggestion failed, but we expect the same issue to come up again and again. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Hecht. Your three minutes are up on this one. MS. HECHT: We respectfully request you reinstate the 2 %. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask that Ms. Hecht remain for questions during our discussion of CA -15. MS. HECHT: I will thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Next we have Mr. Ben Daysart. BEN DYSART (At this time Ben Dysart came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. DYSART: Thank you for allowing me to testify on CA -15 in support. The others before me have said it a lot better than I, so I'm just going to say I'm in support. I haven't heard anything negative about CA -15 since we've been here. I would like to point out that West Hawaii contributes, I think, 76% of the property taxes. I think most of the testifiers who you have heard from today are from West Hawaii. I think you should consider that as an important factor in your decision. Because of the expense that limits purchases, I'm surprised there is not talk of increasing the 2 %. I would like to yield the rest of my time to Ms. Hecht if she has any more to say. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have any additional testifiers in Hilo? MS. VICTORINE: Thank you, yes we do Mr. Chairman. Our next testifier here in Hilo is Ms. Barbara Kahn - Langer. She is hereto speak on CA -11, CA -14, and CA -15. BARBARA KAHN - LANGER (At this time Barbara Kahn - Langer came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. KAHN- LANGER: Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to all of us. On CA -11, I agree with that amendment. CA -12, I support the League of Women Voter's position. If I lived in another area where streets were laid out, where everybody knew exactly what their address was from the beginning, I would have a different 16 position. But, since I've lived here, most of the addresses I've been provided with by other people have to do with, go down the road; count the number of telephone poles. So, I think we have to be aware of what Hawaii is about and I think the League of Women Voter's position covers all the legalities needed. Thank you very much on that. I support the position of the Legislative Auditor in Draft 2, and I would like to address the rest of my comments to CA -15. I wholeheartedly support the testimony of Debbie Hecht. Please reinstate the 2% land fund. Please, please from the bottom of my heart, I beg you to do that. Not too long ago, maybe two or three years ago, my husband and I were camping with friends over at a beach called Pine Trees. The next time we went to that beach, there was a big tent set up and there were land developers promoting this brand new subdivision of land and this wonderful new area of land that was to be developed. It was a tragedy, an absolute tragedy to be able to have a group of developers from California wearing their brand new shirts, come in a develop a piece of land that people had used for years and years and years; supporting their families, having wonderful times. It made no sense whatsoever. I would appreciate if you would please put the 2% land fund back on the ballot and let all of us vote on that. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in Hilo to testify? MS. VICTORINE: Mr. Chairman, that was our final testifier this afternoon. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Let's move on to the approval of the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 18, 2009 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2009 meeting? Ms. Kawauchi moved to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2009 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, there was one minor error I found on page 27 on the issue of the four year council terms. It was listed as Mr. Unger and it was actually me. I don't know if Scott wants to be associated with that; you should probably change that; on page 27 under Communications, Four -Year Council Terms. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Shumway. I would also like to note two corrections on page one; with respect to the reference, absent as to Commissioner Osborne, that should be excused. In the reference to Jay Kimura, where it says Corporation Counsel; that should be Prosecuting Attorney. Do I have a motion to amend the minutes? 17 Mr. Shumway moved to amend the minutes of the December 18, 2009 meeting by replacing the reference to Mr. Unger to Mr. Shumway on page 27, to replace the reference to absent to excused for Ms. Osborne and replace the reference to Mr. Jay Kimura to Prosecuting Attorney. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I would also like to point out that Ms. Margaret Masunaga is the Deputy Planning Director, on page one. CHR. HAITSUKA: So we can amend that motion to include Ms. Masunaga as the Deputy Planning Director Mr. Shumway moved to amend the motion to include naming Ms. Margaret Masunaga as the Deputy Planning Director. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: As to the original motion, is there any further discussion? The motion to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2009 meeting as amended was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a RECESS: At 12:43 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 12:57 p.m. W-1 COMMUNICATIONS COMM. 136 Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated January 12, 2010, transmitting a Report on Combining Proposed Amendments which would consolidate (1) CA -2, CA -3, and CA -36; (2) CA -9, CA -23, and CA -30, (3) CA -12 and CA -13. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to adopt the recommendations as set forth in the January 12, 2010 Communication from Mr. Hookano? MR. SHUMWAY: In regards to that, I would like to move that we postpone this until after we have had a chance to look at all of the amendments individually. Then we can talk at the end about combining certain ones. So, I'd like to make a motion. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we need to first have the initial motion made. Mr. Unger moved to adopt the recommendations set forth in Communication 136. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shumway moved to postpone the discussion on Communication 136 until the proposed amendments are discussed separately. Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a COMM. 137 Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated January 13, 2010, transmitting a Request to the County Council for Report Deadline Extension which would extend the deadline one month; from March 13, 2010 to April 13, 2010. Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve Comm. 137, dated January 13, 2010 from Mr. Hookano. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote. 19 Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a NEW BUSINESS FIRST READING OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Please Note: 213 majority vote of the entire commission is required for CA -37 and CA -38 to be considered. CA -37 NAME CHANGE DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Amends Article VI, Chapter 8, Sections 6 -8.1, 6 -8.2, and 6 -8.3. Replaces all references to "research and development" with "economic development." Additionally replaces "improvement of the county community" with "the economic viability and well being of the county community" in Section 6.8.3. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, it is my understanding that we would need a 2/3 majority vote of the Commission to move this particular proposed amendment forward. MR. HOOKANO: That is correct, because it is after the deadline, it would require a 2/3 vote. You have seven Commissioners present here today, and it would require eight Commissioners to make a 2/3 vote of this Commission. CHR. HAITSUKA: Can we move to postpone this particular proposed amendment or do we need another motion first? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, a motion to postpone would require just a majority of the entire Commission, which would be six members. You can't really have the motion to approve, so a motion to postpone would be the only one that you could make. Ms. Kawauchi moved to postpone discussion on CA -37 until the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a 20 CA -38 VOLUNTARY STATUS OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS Amends Article XIII, Section 13 -4, relating to Boards and Commissions, item (g). Amendment deletes item (g) and renumbers remaining items. Ms. Osborne moved to postpone discussion on CA -38 until the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a SECOND READING OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTER AMENDMENTS: CA -1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY Amends Article VIII, Department of Water Supply, Sections 8 -1 through 8 -3, Hawaii County Charter. Replaces all references to "manager" with "manager -chief engineer." Additionally replaces "chief engineer" with "director of public works" in Section 8 -2. Mr. Unger moved to approve the second reading of CA -1. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. UNGER: I have a comment. Although I agree with the intent and what they are trying to accomplish here, this is one of those addendums that I am concerned will clutter the ballot box. I don't think it is that important to include the name change as a potential amendment. So if we were to vote on this, I would vote against it. MR. SHUMWAY: I have a question too. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I was wondering, as you combined amendments, I see in Levi's memo that this one stands alone. I was wondering if it is possible to combine this one with the other housekeeping issues; CA -2, CA -3 and CA -36. What was the reasoning not to include this one? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you want to address Mr. Shumway's comments? 21 MR. HOOKANO: Well, first I want to apologize about my attire. I had a wardrobe malfunction with a cup of coffee this morning and my dress shirt. Regarding whether it's a housekeeping amendment; changing the title of a director's position, you could argue it either way. If his duties don't change, then it could be a housekeeping amendment; that would be up to the Commission to decide on whether that qualifies. MR. UNGER: So, potentially, what would you combine it with? MR. SHUMWAY: CA -2, CA -3, and CA -36, which are all essentially housekeeping issues. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, if Mr. Shumway wanted to make a motion to combine CA -1 with CA -2, CA -3 and CA -36, what would be the proper procedure at this point? MR. HOOKANO: You would have to approve this one, and then when we get to the discussion about combining amendments, the motion would have to be made to include it as part of that consolidation. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on CA -1? The motion to approve the second reading of CA -1 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Kawauchi. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -2 DATA SYSTEMS Moves Chapter 2, Data Systems, from Article V, Executive Branch -The Mayor and Staff Agencies, to Article VI, Executive Branch -The Managing Director and Agencies Under the Managing Director, Hawaii County Charter, and appropriately renumbers all affected sections. Mr. Shumway moved to approve the second reading of CA -2. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? I note that we have Communication 97, from Deputy Corporation William Brilhante, dated November 5, 2009 included with this proposed amendment. 22 COMM. 97: From Deputy Corporation Counsel, William V. Brilhante, dated November 5, 2009, requesting to change the name of the Department of Data Systems to the Department of Information Technology. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, I'm not sure how to address that particular communication in the context of this proposed amendment. MR. HOOKANO: If the Commission wants to make that change from Data Systems to Information Technology, it would be a motion to amend with the contents of Communication 97. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to amend CA -2? Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend CA -2 with the contents of Communication 97 which would change the name of the Department of Data Systems to the Department of Information Technology. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, if the Commission sees this as a substantive amendment, it would be held over until the next Commission meeting pursuant to our rules. CHR. HAITSUKA: Just for clarification. If we approve this amendment to CA -2, we would have to postpone our approval of the second reading of CA -2? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it would automatically be held over if this Commission sees it as a substantive amendment. MS. KAWAUCHI: Right, so I guess the question is, is it a substantive amendment? MR. SHUMWAY: How do we define that, substantive? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: Thank you. I would not see this as a substantive amendment. It is a name change, Data Systems to Information Technology. I don't see it as an expansion of any duties. No duties are changed, so my view on it would be that it is not a substantive change. Does that require a vote or it just the discussion sufficient? MR. HOOKANO: I think just the discussion is sufficient. 23 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on the pending motion? The motion to amend CA -2 by changing the name of the Department of Data Systems to the Department of Information Technology was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: Getting back to the principle motion which is to approve CA -2 as amended at second reading, is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -2, as amended, at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -3 FIRE DEPARTMENT Moves Chapter 4, Hawaii Fire Department, from Article VI, Executive Branch -The Managing Director and Agencies Under the Managing Director, to Article VII, Executive Branch - Departments or Agencies Under Commissions, Hawaii County Charter, and appropriately renumbers all affected sections. Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve the second reading of CA -3. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a 24 CA -4 CIVIL SERVICE LAWS Amends Article III, Section 3 -6; Article IV, Section 4 -5; Article V, Section 5 -3.1; Article VI, Section 6 -3.4; Article VI, Section 6 -9.1; Article VII, Sections 7 -1.5 and 7 -2.5; Article XIII, Sections 13 -3 and 13 -9 of the Charter relating to Civil Service laws that are under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii. Mr. Unger moved to approve the second reading of CA -4. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I would like to add strikethroughs through the brackets just for clarity. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is that going to require an amendment? MR. HOOKANO: No, it doesn't really change anything; it is just a formatting issue. That also applies to CA -1, which was passed by the Commission. Just for clarity, I would like to add the strikethroughs to the brackets in the formatting of the amendments. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -4 at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -5 MERIT APPEALS BOARD Amends Article VII, Section 7 -1.2. The Merit Appeals board is a five member board. The amendment provides for staggered terms. Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve the second reading of CA -5. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Hookano. 25 MR. HOOKANO: I would like to add the strikethroughs, and suggest the Commission amend it by rearranging Sections (a)(2) and (a)(3) by reversing them. That way, formatting wise, it follows chronologically for the appointments of the commissioners in the future. Under (a)(2) it says December 31, 2018 and under (a)(3) it says December 31, 2016. So if (2) and (3) could be reversed, it would follow chronologically. CHR. HAITSUKA: Your recommendation would be to reverse subparagraphs (2) and (3) of proposed amendment CA -5. MR. HOOKANO: Yes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to amend CA -5? Ms. Osborne moved to amend CA -5 by reversing subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3). Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: We are back to the original motion to approve the second reading of CA -5 as amended. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -5 as amended at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -6 REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS SERVING UNDER COMMISSIONS Amends Article VII, Chapter 1, Section 7 -1.3; Article VII, Chapter 3, Section 7 -3.4; Article VI, Chapter 4, Section 6 -4.; and Article VIII, Section 8 -3. Amends provisions governing the appointment and removal of administrative heads appointed by Boards and Commissions to be consistent. 26 Mr. Kealoha moved to approve CA -6 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -7 RECALL PROCEDURES Amends Sections 12 -1.1, 12 -1.3, 12 -1.5, 12 -1.6. Changes County's recall procedure by (1) amending the information required from signers of a recall petition; (2) amending the requirement that the number of signatures required be 25% percent of the votes cast, rather than 25% of the total number of persons who registered in the last election; (3) allowing the clerk more time to review supplemental petitions, and; (4) amending the number of votes required for an official to be successfully recalled. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion? Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -7 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: I believe we have the County Clerk here, Mr. Ken Goodenow. He has submitted a memorandum on this particular proposed amendment. Mr. Goodenow, do you want to state your position on this? KENNETH GOODENOW (At this time Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. GOODENOW: Sure, and Pat Nakamoto is also present. We had quite a lengthy discussion on the signature requirement at the last meeting, so I'll defer on that unless you want to ask specific questions. Though I note, that with this matter, since it could be district specific, it's even more important that the residence address be included. There was some discussion in the public testimony; testifiers raised some questions regarding CA -12. I would be happy to discuss that under CA -12; or now if you wish. I would though point to the number of qualified voters. Of course, we take no position on how many voters you need to sign a petition, but the phrase used here is a little ambiguous; "persons who voted." What if it was a blank vote, what if it was an over vote, and they voted for two people. How do we determine that number? So I respectfully request that you delete that, "person who voted," and replace it either with, "total ballots cast in the 27 last proceeding election," and "total ballots cast in the district" in that other section. Or, "valid votes cast" in the last proceeding election. Those are both standard terms that are found in State law in the Charter. So, we ask you to clarify that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Of those two, which one would be preferable? MR. GOODENOW: Well, I guess that is up to you. "Total ballots cast in the last proceeding general election," is easier for us because the State's certified results are issued that way. We just look at the certified number, and it's there. But, I note that would include blank votes, whereas "valid votes cast" wouldn't include the over vote. want to make sure Pat agrees with that. So, that is kind of a policy choice of yours, but just for ease of the administration, we would prefer, "total ballots cast." MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: Would it be appropriate to say, "Total valid ballots cast in the last proceeding general election ?" MR. GOODENOW: Right, "valid votes cast in the last proceeding general election." Either that or the other one we would be happy with. At least it is clear. MS. KAWAUCHI: Maybe, "Total valid votes ?" MR. GOODENOW: I think "valid votes cast," is clearer. It is the number of valid votes cast. I think "total" could be a tautology, when you have unnecessary words. But, we would have no objection. MS. KAWAUCHI: I'm just suggesting how to meet one policy concern; that you would want to make sure not to count invalid votes. So the concern is not to be redundant. It's a drafting question, I think. MR. GOODENOW: If you look on page 3 of Communication 159; in our testimony, we are fine with "valid votes cast in the last proceeding election." We have no objection, and would appreciate that you do pick one of these. MS. KAWAUCHI: I have further questions. Two things were raised in the testimony today and I am interested in knowing what your opinion would be. The first would be; there was testimony concerning 30 days, versus 90 days. There was some testimony raised that 30 days might be too short a time period to collect signatures, and the suggestion was made that for a petition concerning a Mayor, that it be 120 days; and if it was a petition concerning a Council member, that it be moved to 90 days. Do you have an opinion on that? W-1 MR. GOODENOW: Just to be clear, looking at the current Charter provision, this would be to collect the petition or to call the election after? MS. KAWAUCHI: I believe it was to collect the petition. MR. GOODENOW: I don't have the full version of the Charter. I would like to make sure. Pat do you have a comment on that? I don't see a problem on that, but I just want to be sure we don't overlap into any other deadlines. (Reading from the Charter) "All papers comprising a recall petition shall be assembled and filed with the County Clerk as one instrument within 30 days after the filing with the Clerk of the affidavit saying the name and the officer sought to be removed. " I don't see an issue; you know, I haven't had much time to really look at this. The person would remain in office during that period; I don't see a problem with giving them more time. Pat seems to be okay with that. So, I have no objection to that change. MS. KAWAUCHI: I have a second question. It had to do with testimony made today concerning persons unable to identify their exact street address. In our County there are many places that are very rural; where street signs are not commonly used. I think the comment was that many people identify their address by telephone pole number instead of residence address. Do you have any comment on that? I think it is important for voters to identify their residence, because voting is something that is done pursuant to where you live. Do you have any comment on that? MR. GOODENOW: As we talked about last time, there are two kinds of issues as I see it. There is our duty to make sure that the person is a qualified voter. And there are two parts to that; (1) they are registered and (2) they actually reside in the district. That is why we felt so strongly, as we testified last time, that we need the residence address. The other issue is what is the practical effect of requiring it, and the number of signatures being invalidated? One of the testifiers specifically referenced the 2% land use initiative drive. I think there were 1,500 or so wrong addresses; either a completely different street or they may have left off- - -Just for your information; let's say you live on Hanama Street and you put down Hanama, and there is no ambiguity, we count that. But if you put Hanama and there is a street in Hilo and a place in Kona, then we flag it and we say we are not sure. What happened though, with the 2% was it went to the Council, and all 1,500 of those ambiguities with addresses were added by the Council to the total number of signatures. So, we did end up counting those and that is why the 2% got on the ballot. The Council ultimately decided to disagree with the Clerk as to how strictly that should be done. I can certainly sympathize with the comments made by some of the testifiers, but again, our primary duty is to fulfill our legal obligations. It is not to validate or invalidate, it's neither. However, I do note there has been a law change that people need to post their address. You have to put down your residence address when you register to vote. I notice the cards are sent every two years that includes both your mailing and your actual residence address. But I do understand; I lived in Orchid Land for many years, so I do understand that. But the law for all voting; whether it's for signing a petition or going to vote, there 29 are two things; registered, and this is where you live. If you go to a polling place where you are registered, but you say you live somewhere else, you can't vote there. They will re- direct you to the appropriate district. And because these are council districts, even more so than CA -12, I think you would really need to put in residence address. MS. KAWAUCHI: Thank you. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Following along with the same question regarding residence address or physical address; when I go to my polling place, and I present my identification and they find me on the roll, what information is there next to my name? MR. GOODENOW: That should be your registered address. Pat, please come forward. PAT NAKAMOTO (At this time Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. NAKAMOTO: I am Pat Nakamoto; I am the Elections Program Administrator. To answer your question; in the poll book, it would be your name and residence address. MR. KAULUKUKUI: And so, that is checked against my identification card. Typically, I am providing some means of identifying myself. MS. NAKAMOTO: No, that is not how it's done. Many times, a lot of people use their drivers license as their identification and you know, some people only need to renew their drivers license every 12 years; so that information changes. MR. KAULUKUKUI: No, I'm sorry, that is not what I meant. Basically, when I come up, I provide some identification that says this is who I am, they look me up in the book, they find my line, and it includes my residence. MS. NAKAMOTO: Then the official will turn the poll book over to the voter and ask the voter to verify that the information in the poll book is correct. MR. KAULUKUKUI: That is my point. So for me, the logic doesn't carry all the way through the argument. If, at the point we vote, we are asked to validate our physical address, that tells me that there is the expectation that the person who is voting knows their physical address and therefore all the way through, including recall or in another Charter amendment where the issue comes up, there is a reasonable expectation to be able to provide physical residence for each registered voter. You have got to know it. If you know it in one case, you have got to know it in the other case. C CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MS. OSBORNE: I just want to state for the record that I really have concerns about this, being one of these rural inhabitants. I have lived in the same place for over 20 years, and I actually could not tell you my physical address. I suppose if it was presented to me, I could say yes, that is correct; buy I wouldn't be able to cite it. I'm just wondering, in your testimony when you say there is no way of knowing if the person is a qualified voter without that residence address - -and I've seen how laborious this process is for your office to confirm - -that in this age of technology, is it possible to have an either /or? Could you have your social security or your - - -Is there any other way around this? Is this the only way, according to your letter, that you can confirm? MR. GOODENOW: My feeling is that it is sort of a two -step process. One is verifying the signature, and we know it's you. That is separate from the second step where you are saying this is where I live. So, I think you have got to keep them separate. Sure, if we were only looking for is this who you say you are and we were not worried about your residence, right, you could do that. But, because of State law, you have go to be a qualified voter, is our requirement. That means two things; the first one is being registered, but the second one is you are saying this is where you live; you did not move. We really feel that we have got to follow what we have to do; and we couldn't swear that you are a qualified voter unless you say this is where you are residing. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: If I understood your previous testimony, you had said that the voter registration card will state a person's residential address? MR. GOODENOW: Yes. MS. KAWAUCHI: At that point when you fill out the card - -and those cards are generated based on a person registering to vote - -so at that time, based on those two items, you would think a person would know. Practically speaking, if you move from one area to another, you may not know at that point. I have another question. Is it possible when persons are collecting petitions that there is a way for them to identify exactly the areas they are in and the street addresses that they are going to, if they are going door to door? I guess it wouldn't work if you were just standing in front of a grocery store relying on the person signing to know where they live. I'm just trying to see if there is some other kind of happy medium that can be reached. MR. GOODENOW: I think that is really a good question. I was talking to Sue Dursin; from the League of Women Voters, and we are going to try and get together to look at -. Well, first, to clarify some of the factual statements that have been made; so at least we all - -we may disagree - -but we agree these are the facts. The other thing is, for example, when you are a candidate, you can purchase a voter registration list. The State law, 31 Chapter 11, requires that it be for a government purpose or for an election. You might argue that it's not an election to be getting a petition for something that may be on the ballot. On the other hand, it may be. We may have to seek clarification, maybe even try to change the law. But, perhaps we could provide this list to the petitioners committee, so they have the list and they can verify the person's official address. MS. NAKAMOTO: I believe the petitioner committee did have a registered voter list that they could use. MR. GOODENOW: So, there are other ways that we could do this by working together. The League of Women Voters - -we have a good relationship with - -I think we can work with them. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Hecht, if you could hang on. I'm going to call you up after they are done. I have some questions for you. MS. KAWAUCHI: I guess the concern is that it is very difficult to collect signatures. I'm trying to balance the concerns. MR. GOODENOW: As the Chief Elections Officer for the County, I certainly take no position as to whether it should be harder or easier to put something on the ballot; of course not. But, instead of possibly causing us a real legal concern, maybe lower the number of signatures required. If that is your concern, you should be looking at that area. MR. UNGER: I just have one other question. What are the criteria when you go to verify a voter; that he is a registered voter, what are the first criteria you look at, what is the process? Refresh my memory. MS. NAKAMOTO: Our voter registration system is that we can get the information two ways; either by a social security number or by the voter's name. Since that social security number has been removed from the process, we go in and pull up the voter's record by the voter's name. MR. UNGER: What information comes up? MS. NAKAMOTO: Once we get to the voters personal screen, there is the name, social security number, residence address, mailing address, and information like their district precinct number, their council district number, their date of birth, name of their polling place. MR. UNGER: So, if you were to pull up their address, and they put 261 Hanama instead of 261 Hanama Street; was that okay? MR. GOODENOW: That's okay. MR. UNGER: Because there was back and forth between you guys. 32 MR. GOODENOW: If you look at Ms. Hecht's testimony, Communication 131, page 7, it says notice of insufficiency stated 517 addresses had residence address, no match, please clarify. The response was there are several reasons. This may be caused by (1) A person moving, (2) The house number might be incorrect, the suffix; highway, center, court, place, street or avenue was omitted or did not match provided there are more than one suffix to an address. I talked to Pat to clarify this. So, if there is only one Hanama -- you know a lot of times the place and street are in the same area - -there is no problem. We know you live in Hilo. But if there is a place in Kona and an avenue in Hilo, well, I guess we could assume that. In the initial certificate they said, "No, we are not going to count those; then the Council said, "You should count those." And the 1,500 were added. MR. UNGER: Yes, but they had to go through that process. MR. GOODENOW: That's the safety check right there. They are the ultimate ones to decide what is sufficient. MR. UNGER: The ultimate goal is to avoid voter fraud. Is that right? MR. GOODENOW: Yes and no. The ultimate goal is to say that they are a qualified voter. MR. UNGER: I'm just wondering if there is any other scenario. The address is a hassle. I live on Kanika Place; if I was to fill out one of those, guaranteed I wouldn't put Place, they probably couldn't read my handwriting, they couldn't read my address to start with. I'm just wondering if there is any other scenario whereby you can validate that this person is a registered voter and he lives in this area, other than having them spell out their address. MR. GOODENOW: At the time they sign a petition; I don't think so. I will note that this number was a very insignificant number. Most of the 517 referred to were completely different streets. That was added because they wanted it to be a total answer and we said, "Yes, we had some ambiguity, and we weren't sure." MS. KAWAUCHI: May I ask a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: What if we were to propose language that said residence - -as it looks like it says, "Name, that shall be reasonably similar," what if we said, "Street address that shall be reasonably similar to their registered street address." Would that cause a problem? MS. NAKAMOTO: Our job is to be sure that the signatures that we are qualifying are actually the signers of the petition; trying to find a way that the County will not get legally challenged at the back end of the petition process by saying that we qualified 33 people who should not have signed. So it's trying to find a way that we can positively identify that these signers of the petition are qualified. MS. KAWAUCHI: It's got to be a difficult job to go through and make sure; you have a lot of responsibility and your accountability is very high. The one thing I am thinking is that in connection with the other requirements; name, reasonable similar as stated on the register, the social security number, your month and date of birth - -it's so hard to collect these petitions; my signature is very difficult to make out - -I just want to get to some place like reasonably similar to where you live. But, is that too unclear? MR. GOODENOW: I think we kind of do that already. For example, in the street; if you don't put place or street, but you put Hilo and there is only one like that in Hilo, then there is no question. I think we do try and validate. We are not trying to knock people out. MS. KAWAUCHI: When the County Council did go ahead and take in those 1,500 signatures, they probably used some kind of rationale that the identification was reasonable enough to be able to make out that person's identity. But, I don't want to get you guys in a spot where there is a legal problem. I'm just trying to tease it out a little bit more because there is a lot of discussion today. MS. NAKAMOTO: I just wanted to mention that when the staff is trying to qualify the signatures on the petition -- because we have to go in there by their name and sometimes it's illegible and hard to make out the information on the petition - -there is a process where we go in and for one signature we make three or four attempts to gather the information and try to qualify it with the information that is in our voter registration system before we give up and say the information doesn't match. MR. UNGER: Do you contact the person? Do you call them? MS. NAKAMOTO: No, we do not. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Question; if in the last election I lived in Puna, but I currently live somewhere in Hamakua, and there is a recall for a councilmember who represents Hamakua. Can I vote in that recall? MR. GOODENOW: In the vote, on the election, when you go up to vote; you would go to your old -- -Let's say you get the card, and it says go to Pahoa, and you go to Pahoa, and you say you moved, they will - -- MS. NAKAMOTO: If this is a recall election, and you were living in Puna, you now live in Hamakua, and that is your legal residence address - -- c MR. KAULUKUKUI: My physical residence is in Hamakua. MS. NAKAMOTO: There would probably be a registration period; a deadline for those voters to register and update their information. MR. KAULUKUKUI: And if I do that - -- MS. NAKAMOTO: You can do that up until election day; then you would be allowed to vote. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Now, the reverse; I lived in Puna, now I live in Hamakua, and there is a recall in Puna. Can I vote in that? MS. NAKAMOTO: No. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Okay, so where you physically live matters; critically matters. In terms of the voter's role, the physical address of a voter is initially provided by the voter when they register. So, I don't understand why we are asking to hold people to a lower level of responsibility later, if they are the ones who provided the physical address in the first place. I just want us to be consistent. I think it's ridiculous for someone to be eliminated because they wrote Drive instead of Street, so if we could find some way to solve that problem; but I think we need them to provide their physical address. Would the street name and zip code be sufficient? So, for instance, there is a Laukapu in Volcano, there is a Laukapu in Hilo; two different zip codes. If it is Laukapu, you don't have to put more than that. In fact there is not even a mechanism for putting down Street, Avenue or Drive or anything; just Laukapu and a zip code. MR. GOODENOW: There is no problem with that; and I'll tell you what, as Clerk, if we had a petition today, and they put down Laukapu, and they were still registered on that, I'm not going to invalidate that. It's clear to me, and I'm willing to certify that if the person says they live there, that is in the district, they didn't move -- -But, sometimes, let's say it is unclear, that's the only time it would come up; and I don't think that happens very often. MS. KAWAUCHI: I guess the time that it happened - -an example that is being used - -was during the 2% petition drive. But, I agree with what Commissioner Kaulukukui is saying about if you are responsible for putting your address on the card, you should know. But, I guess I am also looking at if you make a mistake; say you put Drive instead of Place. There should be a way for the Clerk to have some way to say it is reasonable to conclude, with the other identifying information, it is clear enough. MR. GOODENOW: I think we can. I guess it could vary, Clerk by Clerk; but you always have the Council to look at it. What happens is you go to the Council and you say we invalidated this many signatures for these reasons, here is the breakdown and they can say - -- 35 MS. KAWAUCHI: That is why I am trying to find out whether inserting the language, "reasonably similar to your address" is a way for you to do that. And if you ever have a concern, you can go to the Council at that point. At least, if you have it in there, you have some discretion. You can consider a Drive, versus a Place, versus a Lane. I know this is probably very stressful, because you have to be accurate, and you take your jobs very seriously, and your level of accountability is high. But, at the same time, inserting language like, "reasonably similar" might be helpful in the long run. MR. GOODENOW: I agree; the only thing I'm a little scared of is the term, "reasonable." Is that going to be a source of litigation? If they put down, third pole on the left, they might argue that is reasonably similar; it's the description. Is that reasonable? That scares me a little. MS. NAKAMOTO: I just wanted to make a comment. Reasonably similar means different things to different people. As examples of some of the situations that have occurred while we were validating a petition, for instance with a name; Pete and Peter is reasonably similar. James and Jim are reasonably similar. But quite surprising was like a Cindy and a Cynthia. To me that was reasonably similar. To the staff, we had major discussions about that. They disagreed with me. Or, Victoria and Tory; those are situations where reasonably similar would mean different things to different people. MR. GOODENOW: And I think you have got to give the clerks some discretion. This isn't like a computer. You have got to give the clerks some discretion as to what is reasonable. For me personally, I think the characterization that we are out to invalidate signatures, at least as far as I am concerned, is completely wrong. I would say it is the other way around. For me, as long as I feel comfortable, I am going to certify it. But, if I have a doubt that I don't think I am going to be fulfilling my legal requirements, then - -- MS. KAWAUCHI: Is it provided for in the Charter that those doubt situations then go to Council? Is there a rule? MR. GOODENOW: We were talking about the initiative procedure, CA -12; and in that procedure, it did go to council. They looked at the signatures and said to include them. That is what made it go above the requirement. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Just another clarifying question. If I come in to register to vote and I put down my physical address as 53 Kanoelani, Hilo, and I don't put Street, Drive, or anything like that. How does it show up on the roll? MS. NAKAMOTO: In that case, when you are registering to vote, if you put Kanoelani, and there is just one Kanoelani in our directory - - -We have a directory of acceptable street names for the County of Hawaii. In this directory, if there is only one Kanoelani Street, then we would register you at Kanoelani Street. If there is more than one, then the staff would contact you. That is for voter registration. C MR. KAULUKUKUI: Why don't we do that for recall? MS. NAKAMOTO: For one thing, on the voter registration affidavit, there is a telephone number for the voter, and on the recall petition there is no telephone number. MR. KAULUKUKUI: So, could we add a telephone number line? MS. NAKAMOTO: That would take too much time. MR. KAULUKUKUI: But, wouldn't we be calling less people in a recall than in a Primary or General Election? MS. NAKAMOTO: Pardon me? MR. KAULUKUKUI: Wouldn't we most likely be calling less people in a recall than we would in a Primary or General Election; unless it is for the office of the Mayor. MR. GOODENOW: Of course, but the problem is the time. For registration, they come in all the time. Recall, we have a short window to verify the petition. MS. NAKAMOTO: With the 2% petition, initially when the petition was turned in, the requirement was like 4,800 signatures. And the Clerk accepted the petition with 3,000 signatures; the first petition that was turned in. Then in addition, they turned in two supplemental petitions after that. It was a total of over 10,000 signatures that we needed to verify. We worked seven days a week trying to get the work done within the legal required amount of time. MS. KAWAUCHI: What is the short widow that you describe? What is the time period? MR. GOODENOW: I always get mixed up between recall and initiative; I believe it is 20 days. If you look under 12- 1.1(c) the term "qualified voter" means a person who is registered to vote in the County on the day that the Clerk begins the examination to determine the sufficiency of the signatures on the petition." Oh, I'm sorry 30 days; here it is in 12 -1.4, it is, "...within thirty (30) working days from the filing of such petition, the clerk shall determine if the petition contains sufficient signatures and prepare a certificate showing the result of the examination. If the clerk shall certify that the petition is insufficient, the clerk shall set forth in the certificate the particulars in which the petition is defective...." And then they have a supplemental period, and then within five (5) days after supplemental petition is filed - -if they don't have enough, and then they come back with all this in five days -- again, it then goes to the Council for their review, and they ultimately determine if they are going to count them or not. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair. 37 CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: In this amendment, we are changing the five (5) to ten (10), just for clarification; on the supplemental part of this amendment, it is changed from five to ten days. Also, I have a question for Mr. Goodenow. I think there are two issues here. One is that -- especially in CA -7, where we are talking about recall --I think it is very important that we know for a fact that the people signing the petitions reside in that district. For recall of a council member, the total numbers of people aren't going to be that great and we want to protect abuse of the process. I think it is critical that we know that people are living there. We do have to weigh that against the potential disenfranchisement of people; and I think that is a legitimate issue, especially in Puna and the more rural areas. So, I'm wondering if it is possible within the context of the amendment to include address, but define it as Mr. Kaulukukui was talking about; street address and zip code. Can we define what we need in the address to make it possible for people who have a P.O. Box and a zip code, but maybe they don't have a number or know the number. MR. GOODENOW: Two things, if I could respond. One, I did miss - speak. Like I said, I sometimes get mixed up on recall and initiative and referendum. On recall, it doesn't get reviewed by the Council. I guess it might be partisan; they might want to add some in because they don't like the guy. So, in recall, it is different. Recall, it is the clerk's final call as to what is sufficient or insufficient. As to your point Mr. Shumway, I agree, but we kind of do that already. And secondly, if you put a zip code, there are three council districts you could live in 96720. If you put X street, 96720, and there are other streets in Kona that may be the same, we certify it because we know 96720, there is only one street. That is obvious. That is not a problem. Just the street and place thing is not a large issue. The reason it was mentioned in the former clerk's memo, is because at least one was like that; ambiguous, and she had to list all the reasons and that was one of them. CHR. HAITSUKA: Just to comment on what you said Mr. Shumway. I had a similar thought where maybe with respect to the residence address, put it in parentheses next to that; street number, street, city and zip code. But I was thinking about the reverse of that. If somebody forgot to put in their zip code, would that then be a reason to invalidate the signature? So, I don't know if we should define it, because if the person who signs fails to put in their zip code, and it is defined by that parentheses as including street number, street, city and zip code, would that then be a reason to invalidate it? MR. GOODENOW: The way it is now, if you don't put it, we don't require it. But, if you actually put it in the Charter that you have to put your zip code, well then, right we would say forget it, it is required by the Charter. I really appreciate the concerns and I am 100% committed to working with the League of Women Voters. I also know I'm not going to be the clerk forever, and there might be a rogue clerk, I suppose, one day. But, there is political accountability to the clerk. We answer to all nine council members. I just think that you cannot make it perfect, and it's going to come down to the clerk's call. Is this where the guy lives? And if we look at their mailing address and their residence and they misspell it, but obviously - -come on, I'm not going to say that's insufficient --I feel reasonably certain. But, if it is a totally different street name, that is another story. C Now, I don't know if they live where they said they did or not. That's really all we are trying to do. Number one, they are registered. Number two, they live in the right council district where the recall is taking place and they are allowed to vote in that district. MS. KAWAUCHI: I guess what this comes down to, is if we were to insert something like, "residential address stated reasonably similar to what is listed in the general county register," you are saying that is something you do already and to add it might give you some trouble; not to add it might give you some trouble. Drawing a bright line, saying name, signature, residence address, date of signing on said petition provides some security to the government that if you make a call, you won't be found in fault. The ground truth, though, is that people oftentimes don't know their residential address. 1,500 people did not know. MR. GOODENOW: 500 people put their P.O. Box, and not their residential address. MS. OSBORNE: That's huge. MS. KAWAUCHI: That is a lot of people. So there is ground truth versus what is in practice, versus what is in the Charter, and what gives the government and the voters enough security to go forward. MR. GOODENOW: I will note too, that 332 people didn't date it, which we also had to invalidate them, because it has got to be signed during the period. If there is no date, we don't know. Again, the Council decided to throw that back in anyways. 229 put no address; they left it blank, for the 2 %. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Osborne. MS. OSBORNE: I am wondering if I wanted to go in and start a petition drive over something, is there like a simple one page fact sheet that spells it out for those of us who might put in a post office box as opposed to a physical address. Is there a step by step clarifying memo that would get handed out to people that says, you must, it is essential; like when you fill in web forms, you have the asterisk that says these are essential, they must be filled out, or it cannot be processed. Those essentials are clearly articulated and highlighted because some of this is an educational process for the general person who isn't really ma'a to this process. MS. NAKAMOTO: To answer your question, no, we do not have a fact sheet. I have been involved in three initiative petition processing; irradiation, the 2 %, and lowest law enforcement. What has happened in all three of those petition drives is before the drive began we sat and we met with the committee. We provided them with information about the petition form. We gave them information on our validation process, and involved in that discussion was our corporation counsel, our county clerk and our staff. So, we had face to face meetings where we answered all of the questions that they had, and provided them with all of the information that we felt they needed and gave them samples of the information that we had. C MR. GOODENOW: I liked that. And we are going to meet with the League of Women Voters; I agree completely. I can't promise this because we may need an attorney general's opinion whether we can give the list out to people, but then they can look right there. Mr. Smith, you put this down as your residence address, is that right? I think we can solve a lot of these issues without resorting to - -- MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the Commission that the topic is on recall and not on initiative and referendum, which follows a completely process from recall. The recall petition doesn't have to go to the Council for certification, whereas the initiative and referendum process does. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi, you had a question for Ms. Hecht. MS. KAWAUCHI: To start, you were here for the testimony from Ms. Nakamoto and Mr. Goodenow; do you have anything to add or statements you would like to make? I would acknowledge that you have ground truth knowledge, which means you have been through a process similar to what we have been talking about. MS. HECHT: Yes, I wanted to correct some misinformation. Please remember, whether it is a recall petition, or an initiative petition drive, the ultimate goal is to qualify signatures. And the ultimate check and balance on that is when it's on the ballot, whether votes approve it or not. Yes, in the case of an initiative petition; it does go to the Council, but 1,500 signatures were not added back in. The Council passed it because we got almost 10,000 signatures; and in a county of 175,000 people, that is a pretty large group of folks saying we want to see this on the ballot. So, those are two different issues. I don't think Kenny was looking at the right thing, because in Communication 131, this speaks to residence address in the recall amendment that we are speaking about, on the subject of the 2 %, what ended up happening is we collected - - -I'm speaking about residence addresses and why they were kicked out of the petition so that you understand. Also, Pat Nakamoto said that how they validate signatures is a two step process. Since they can't cue it with the entire social security number since that is now against the law, and their system is so antiquated, they have to look up somebody's file on the State system, so they have to look up their name. When they look up their name, they have the residence address, they have the birth date, they have all that information and they have the entire social security number. So what the League of Women Voters said when we wrote initiative petition, and what the voters approved was that it was the name, the signature, the day and month of the birth date, and the last four numbers of the social security number. Since they are going into the system and looking at all of this anyway, they have that information. They don't need residence address. The only time, I think they could ever reasonably need residence address is in the case of the recall of a council member. That would be it; the rest of the time, you want to try to qualify as many signatures as possible. 20% of all the signatures we collected on the initiative petition for the 2 %, were kick out; 20 %. .R MR. KAULUKUKUI: But, we are talking about a recall. So physically placing someone in a location within the district in which they are registered to vote is important. MS. HECHT: I think it is only important in the case of a recall of a council member. I don't think it is important in the case of a Mayor. I don't think it is important in the case of initiative petition, or any of that; only in the case of a council member, because you want to pin point. For instance, my district is Kelly Greenwell, then it would be very important that I was in the right place, that I was living in that district and that I had the right to recall that council member. But, any other petition initiative, whether it is for Mayor for recall or the initiative petition drive, or amending the Charter; I don't think it matters. I think they have enough information, when they go into the file, to validate signatures on the last four digits of the social security, the month and day of the birth, the signature and the name. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I can agree with you in the case of an island wide initiative, whether it is to recall the Mayor, some other initiative, like the 2 %. But, what we have got to do is solve the problem about recall of a council member. So, we are kind of splitting hairs; and that is the sticky one. That is where we really nave to verify a signature in a place. So, that is what we are trying to do by being a little more specific in terms of requiring a physical address. MS. HECHT: Right, so maybe just in the case of recall for a council member, you require residence address; otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable in an island wide, which would be a Mayor or an initiative petition. That would be my recommendation. But, again, for the 2 %, out of 8,782 signatures, 1,578 were disqualified by residence address, no match, and an additional 500 signature were kicked out for no residence address. Then, if you go on this information that I sent to you, on number six, it says signatures had no residence address. These are the comments by Connie Kiriu and were based on the first signature collection. I wrote this letter to her after the first signature collection so when we went out subsequently, we wouldn't make the same mistakes and we could go talk to volunteers and say this is what needed to done. What they say here is the notice of insufficiency stated that 229 signatures had no residence address. In these instances, the person did not provide a residence or he /she provide a mailing address instead. Question number seven in the Kiriu letter says the notice of insufficiency stated that 517 signatures had no residence match and there were several reasons why it wasn't a residence match; person moved and didn't re- register, the house number was correct, but the suffix was omitted, meaning Center, Place, Avenue, Street; and the name was incorrect against the SVRS. Again, the goal is to qualify signatures and then the check and balance is on the ballot and whether voters approve it. A lot of people don't even - - -I didn't. I lived on old Palani Road; there was no mailbox there, I didn't even pay attention to it. I had to go look at my lease to find the address, because I used a P.O. Box. That happened amazing amount of times. Residence addresses were even kicked out, when a husband said to a wife, "What is our address, honey ?" That happened so many times, it was amazing. And if there were ditto marks put under a husband and wife, those were kicked out. I can't stress it too many times; it 41 is to qualify people to get them on the ballot, and then the check is when you go to the polls to vote. If the person is recalled or if a ballot measure is approved. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any further questions for Ms. Hecht? Thank you Ms. Hecht. MS. HECHT: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: I just want to point out; I think there are three areas we are discussion on proposed amendment CA -7. One section would be subsections (a) and (b) of 12 -1.1 and together with section 12 -1.6, in which the County Clerk recommended that the term, "persons who voted," be replaced to, "total ballots cast in the last proceeding general election," or, "valid votes cast in the last proceeding general election." That is one section that we are talking about possibly amending. The second would be section 12 -1.2, adding the term, "residence address" in the language that we already have. The third would be an amendment to section 12 -1.4, which is not currently in our proposed amendment, which would change the reference to 30 days, to either 60 or 90 days as suggested by Ms. Hecht. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair, I wouldn't consider them substantial changes. It doesn't change the spirit, and we have discussed the idea and notion of perhaps name and a physical address. It is mentioned elsewhere in the Charter or in amendments. It is a language change in terms of 25% of the votes cast or valid votes; I think it is something we should move forward and take up today. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: I forgot what I was going to mention. MS KAWAUCHI: I guess I would note, there is no current motion to amend the current language of CA -7. But, I would like to make a motion; and I think it is a substantive one. Changing the number of days for recall, would alter the reporting requirement for the County Clerk as well as ability of persons to collect signatures and to change the definition of persons who registered in the last election to total valid votes cast in the last general election will change the requirement from 25% of registered voters to valid votes cast. So, I think those are substantive changes that would require more persons to consider them. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, it wouldn't require more votes, it's just a motion to amend. It is just a majority of the entire Commission. Six votes would be required to approve an amendment to an existing proposal. Ms. Kawauchi, just to clarify, that was for section 12 -1.1, to change to "valid votes cast," right? That language is also contained in section 12 -1.6. 42 Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend CA -7 by changing language in section 12 -1.4 from 30 days to 120 days in the case of the recall of a Mayor and change 60 days to 90 days in the case of recall of a council member; and to include changing the language in section 12 -1.1 (a) and (b) and in section 12 -1.6 from, "total number of persons who registered to vote in the last election to read, "total valid votes cast in the last proceeding general election." Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a MR. SHUMWAY: In the context of this, I would also propose an amendment to reinsert residence address in section 12 -1.2. The reason being, in a recall election it is very important. I think the burden is on the people gathering the petition to show that the people are currently living at the residence. I feel differently for the initiative process, but for the recall process, the burden should be on those collecting the signatures, not on the county; especially since we did not choose to pass a four -year term. I think we need to protect the process. I would offer a proposal to reinsert that. Mr. Shumway moved to amend CA -7 by reinserting, "residence address" in section 12 -1.2. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: So now we have amended CA -7 based on Ms. Kawauchi's motion and Mr. Shumway's motion. Mr. Hookano. 43 MR. HOOKANO: Because these amendments were substantive, it's automatically held over until the next meeting. You could make the motion to postpone for clarity, otherwise, pursuant to our rules, it will be automatically held over. Ms. Kawauchi moved to postpone CA -7 to the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Osborne and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a RECESS: At 2:26 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 2:41 p.m. CA -9 PECIAL MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENT Amends Section 13 -20, item (c). Adds language to require that electronic notice of special meetings be linked on the appropriate council, board or commission webpage. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -9? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve CA -9 at second reading. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Good afternoon Mr. Ashida. LINCOLN ASHIDA (At this time Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. ASHIDA: Good afternoon. Is it appropriate after the motion is made and seconded, Mr. Hookano, to entertain discussion? MR. HOOKANO: Correct, if you are recognized by the Chair. MR. ASHIDA: Thank you. I think that this is the one that Mr. Goodenow had submitted some testimony in opposition to this. In our discussion with our administration, and we support all of the boards and commissions county wide; I think the intention of this proposal is a good one because it is attempting to ensure dissemination in the widest possible means for special meetings, but the problem is, if you think about when you .. need a special meeting, it is only when something extraordinary has happened. Sometimes something unfortunate has happened; a natural disaster, tsunami, earthquake, where, perhaps, an emergency appropriation of money from the council is necessary, but, if you cannot have a meeting because HELCo is out, and we can't get online to post a notice; that doesn't make sense. I didn't want to criticize the intent of this measure, because I think it's a good one, but from a practical perspective it may not be wise. I believe the Clerk has submitted opposition to this, and singularly, our administration would not recommend passage of this measure. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Ashida. Is there any discussion? Are there any questions for Mr. Ashida? Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, since I do not know the feeling of the Commission, I would just like for the Commission to know that when drafting this amendment, the last sentence of 13 -20 (c) was omitted. In the original Charter, the original format, the last sentence is not included in this proposal. So, in the event that this passes, the Commission would need to reinsert that language. The last sentence reads, "A brief resume of the principle business to be taken up at such meeting shall be stated in the posted notice as well as in the notice released to the news media. That was left out of this proposal. So, if the Commission could insert that in the event that this does pass, that the language is preserved. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: What happens if we submit some language that an attempt will be made, or they will submit it electronically? Now whether it goes through or not, we can't help that in the case of a natural disaster. But, I think it's a good idea, because we have some other amendments coming down the way that talk about electronic postings. I think in an effort to be consistent, we should include some language like that. MR. ASHIDA: May I respond, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Unger and members of the Commission, I think the difference is that CA -9 talks about a special meeting and the other provisions talk about the regular meetings. I think for the most part, no one has any problems with the regular meetings; having to post electronically, I think it's a great idea. Many of them do that right now anyways. It's just that CA -9 talks about the limited circumstance of the special meeting, where we would presume that the reason for that special meeting may be some event that may render access to electricity not possible. We just didn't want to not be able to meet, for example, to appropriate funds, in an emergency. Thank you. MR. SHUMWAY: If we added the words, "and if possible, an electronic notice," would that address your concerns? 45 MR. ASHIDA: Sure, I don't have the actual language in front of me, but I assume it is mandatory; it mandates it as a condition of even holding the meeting, right? MR. HOOKANO: Right, and under the current language it says, "shall be linked to the appropriate council, board or commission web page. It uses the term, "shall." MR. ASHIDA: We have no problems with that. MR. GOODENOW: I just want to note that there is a similar provision in CA -23. It is different thought, because this would apply to even the radio, the emergency one. The other one only applies to when you publish it in the paper. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow, since you are here, looking at your communication, I see you reference the Rules of Procedure of the County of Hawaii. I just wanted to know the applicability of those rules. Would that be applicable to the County Clerk? MR. GOODENOW: Right, in fact we haven't had that many special meetings. As long as I've been Deputy Clerk or Clerk, I'm almost 100% certain that all of those were posted on our website; and it says, "if possible," so it does give us some leeway. But, yes, it would apply. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I would like to make a motion to amend that. Can I do that? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes. Mr. Shumway moved to amend CA -9 by adding the words, "if possible." CA -9 would then read, 11 ... and, if possible an electronic notice shall be linked on the appropriate council, board or commission webpage. "Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, just to let you know that this one will be held over because it is changing it from a mandatory provision to a discretionary provision. Prior to that, I would also like that there be a motion to add the last sentence back in from the original. ER CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to add the existing last sentence back to paragraph (c) of section 13 -20, which reads, "A brief resume of the principle business to be taken up at such meeting shall be stated in the posted notice as well as in the notice released in the news media," be added back to CA -9. Mr. Shumway moved to add back the last sentence to paragraph (c) of section 13 -20, that was inadvertently omitted when CA -9 was drafted. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to postpone the decision on CA -9? Ms. Osborne moved to postpone CA -9 to the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -10 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS Amends Section 6 -10.4. Expands the powers, duties, and functions of the department to include exercising other functions prescribed by ordinance or the mayor. Currently the department only exercises other functions as prescribed by ordinance. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -10 at second reading? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve CA -10 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I have a question. Is this section consistent with other sections concerning the powers, duties, and functions of department heads? Do they all state that, exercise other functions as prescribed by the Mayor, or prescribed by ordinance? I'm just trying figure out if this is special, or if this is consistent with other sections. I don't know the answer to that. I guess the question was, do we find this same language for other department heads, or not? 47 LONO TYSON (At this time Lono Tyson, Dept. of Environmental Management Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. TYSON: Yes, if I may. When I was asked to take a look at this amendment, I did not review it against all the other departments. I just reviewed it relative to our particular department. So, I can't answer that question, but I can say that when I commented on it, I did not include a comparison of other departments. The provision that I put forward was due to circumstances where our department has certain resources available to us that do affect public health and safety and the environment. The reason why I felt it was important to include the Mayor versus just strictly by ordinance is because it takes time to pass ordinances; whereas if you have public health and safety or environmental issues, those are more immediate. That was one of the reasons why I put forth that recommendation. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Are we ready to vote on CA -10? The motion to approve CA -10 at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -11 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, REQUIREMENTS OF DIRECTOR Amends Section 6 -10.3. Requires the director of the department of environmental management to have had a minimum of five years of administrative experience in a related field AND possess a degree in a related field. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have Mr. Tyson here from the Department of Environmental Management. Let me ask for the motion first. Do I have a motion? Ms. Kawauchi moved to approve CA -10 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Tyson, you submitted some communication to us regarding your recommendations. Is that correct? MR. TYSON: Yes, that is correct. The testimony that I submitted was basically in opposition to the current amendment which adds an additional to the minimum of five years of administrative experience in a related field; so that the director also possess a degree in a related field. My original Communication 27 to the Charter Commission recommended that the director also possess an engineering degree and in the communication that I just submitted, I also added some additional information regarding the fact that prior to December, 2000, when the solid waste division and the waste water division were a part of the department of public works, the director for that department was required to be a registered engineer and additionally, the Charter also requires that the department of water supply, that department head, be a registered engineer as well. So, I just wanted to take into consideration politics and negotiation that there be further consideration of the importance that the director of this department have some engineering experience; henceforth, my recommendation that the amendment be modified to include an engineering degree or a degree in a related field. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any questions for Mr. Tyson? MRS. KAWAUCHI: I have a question. I'm not sure what a related field would be in this area; what would a related field be, other than engineering? MR. TYSON: The Department of Environmental Management is responsible for the over sight of the county's solid waste and waste water divisions, and the recycling programs including the abandon vehicle disposal program. So, a related field could be anything ranging from environmental science to even geology to a certain extent. But, a technical background that supports a lot of the very difficult decisions that the director has to make. Although we do have division heads for waste water and solid waste who are registered engineers, decisions are made not strictly based upon their recommendations; although their recommendations are highly put into that equation. It's important for the director to also have an understanding in regards to the other potential ramifications beyond the technical issues. But, having an understanding of those technical issues is critical to making the correct decision. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any further questions for Mr. Tyson? Thank you, Mr. Tyson. Are there any further questions or discussion on this proposed amendment? Is anyone interested in making a motion to amend it? MS. KAWAUCHI: I just need a minute, I guess. The only thing I am concerned about is the minimum of five years of administrative experience in a related field and a degree in a related field. Does this language mirror other sections for directors? CHR. HAITSUKA: I think there are other sections that have similar language. i • MS. KAWAUCHI: I will withdraw what I started to say. I'll leave it alone. It is just hard for me to understand what a related field is. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is anyone interested in making a motion to amend CA -11 in accordance with Mr. Tyson's proposal. Mr. Kaulukukui moved to amend CA -11 in accordance with Communication 171, to read, "an engineering degree or a degree in a related field." Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. KAULUKUKUI: To be specific in the proposed amendment, it would read, "The director shall have had a minimum of five years of administrative experience in a related field, and a degree in engineering or in a related field ?" CHR. HAITSUKA: His language there in his communication that is underlined and in bold says, "an engineering degree or a degree in a related field." That would replace, "a degree in a related field." So does everyone understand the motion? It's been moved and seconded, is there any more discussion? The motion to amend in accordance with Communication 171 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, is this one of the amendments that we would need to pass over until the next meeting? MR. HOOKANO: In my opinion, I would leave that up to the Commission; how substantive it is to specify a degree as opposed to not have a degree specified in the original amendment. MR. UNGER: I don't think it is substantive because it leaves it open. It's engineering or; it's not dictating that they are an engineer. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I agree. 50 MR. SHUMWAY: I agree. I say let's vote. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, so let's vote on CA -11 as amended. The motion to approve CA -11 as amended at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a. CA -12 INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS - (Draft 2) Amends Section 15 -1 of the Hawaii County Charter by amending the required information to be collected from a person signing a petition in support of a charter amendment and increases the amount of time the county clerk has to examine the petition for sufficiency from twenty working days to thirty working days. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -12? Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -12 at second reading. Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a motion, we have a second; is there any discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: Based on our previous discussion of CA -7, while I felt strongly that the address should be required for a recall petition, I actually don't feel that way for an initiative petition. As long as people can demonstrate that they live on the island, I think that the standard should be a little bit lower for this. My intention is to offer an amendment to strike the residence address from this amendment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MS. KAWAUCHI: This section appears to come under the supervision or purview of the County Clerk's office. Is that correct? CHR. HAITSUKA: At one point it does. MS. KAWAUCHI: I don't know if the County Clerk might want to comment on striking - -- MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, was there a motion to amend on that matter? 51 CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway stated his intent, or inclination to do it. MR. SHUMWAY: Would it be cleaner if I just propose an amendment? MR. HOOKANO: Well, discussion about removing the residence address wouldn't be appropriate unless a motion to remove it was made. Mr. Shumway moved to amend CA -12 by removing, "residence address" from the requirements for signers on a petition. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Mr. Goodenow, would you like to state your position? MR. GOODENOW: Well, you know at the last meeting where I note that everyone voted to put it in, this is kind of -- -But, the former clerk, Ms. Jarman, also voted with the majority on that. I think there are two things you have to consider. One is verifying that it is the voter, but the other is our legal requirement that the person is a qualified voter. And that is independent of that. It is a two step process. The first step is that they are registered; the second step is when they sign that, they are a resident of where they say they are. If you don't have anything - -- Reasonably similar; I think we already do that, but if there is nothing there, who is to say I moved to Honolulu, and I have a house there, and I fly back and forth; maybe I'm voting in Honolulu. But if I don't put any address, there is no way for us to know. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any other questions of Mr. Goodenow? MR. KAULUKUKUI: Would information about residence address that physically placed them somewhere on the island be sufficient in this case? MR. GOODENOW: Maybe you could have them attest that they are a legal resident of the island. That would, I suppose, satisfy the provision that they live here now. That is the main thing; that they live on the island now. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Would the zip code work? MR. GOODENOW: Same thing, you put the zip code; but you would have to say you legally reside in this zip code; something like that, perhaps, your residential zip code. But I just stand by my testimony at the last meeting. MS. KAWAUCHI: This issue here is if you don't have the residential address and say, you have registered with the county and then you later moved, and you are here for a visit, and signed a petition. You have to, at some point, verify that you are still here, or 52 not here, even if you didn't change your voter registration card. I think that is part of what you are saying. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? My thought on this is that we should be consistent. If you are going to be circulating these petitions, and for one you are going to require someone to put in residence address and for the other it's not going to be a requirement, I see some problems with that as far as the practical aspects. I think it should be consistent so that when a petition is circulated, they will know what is expected under all circumstances. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair, I appreciate that, and I also appreciate Mr. Goodenow's concern; but I do feel that they are two very different things. I think consistency is important, but I think we have to look at what the purpose of the petition is. I think that in the case of an initiative, we should err on the side of inclusion. I wish there was a better way to do it. We have been around and around, but I think, as was demonstrated, and as you pointed out, Mr. Goodenow, the Council eventually approved it anyways. But, I think we really need to be concerned about disenfranchisement; I don't think we can just say that's just too bad; I think we need to try to address it. MR. GOODENOW: Just one comment on that. With the 2 %, it was a very politically charged situation. Numerous people testified, they had to put it on the Council agenda, the Clerk's notice of insufficiency and reasons for the insufficiency were put on the agenda. The public had plenty of opportunity to say you should count the addresses. I think that because the Council does have that review process, I think that is a safeguard. Again, what do you put in the Charter, and what don't you put in the Charter. I suppose you could have some rogue clerk that could look for any small thing to do that, but I don't think that should be the basis for drafting the law; I think there are other recourses for a person that acted in that type of manner. There has to be some discretion in a clerk. If you are qualified, I want to count your signature; and I'll say that right here. I think there are other avenues; working with the League, so they know when they sign the petition, you have go to put it, you cannot leave it blank, you cannot put a P.O. Box, or letting them have the list. Again, I don't know if it's possible, but hopefully they can look up their address right from the list. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: If someone signs a petition and he, once upon a time lived on the Big Island, but he lives on Oahu now. And he is over here, and he signs the petition. But before it ever becomes law, there is the voting aspect of it too. This person technically would have to come back over here for that vote to count and actually vote. At that point he would be lying. MR. GOODENOW: That is correct; however the requirement for signing the petition is that you are a qualified voter to sign the petition. 53 MR. LINGER: It would be voter fraud at that point. I agree with Todd, that in these instances, and based on what happened with the 2 %, and plus, we would be lightening the load on you guys as well. You went to an awful lot of work to verify the residence addresses and whatnot. I just think in this case, we need to open it up and make available for as many people to sign these petitions without being eliminated. I think it is good enough; they put their name, you pull it up on State registration, you look at it, their address is here on the Big Island, that's their registered address. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I would just like to point out that the 2% was an initiative and referendum; this is a petition for Charter amendments. For the process for citizen initiated Charter amendments, if the petition is not sufficient as certified by the Clerk, the Council cannot override that. MR. GOODENOW: I'm sorry, we are talking so much about 2 %, and I keep going back to that. If I could make one last pitch; there are three initiatives that I am aware of. There was irradiation, and that had sufficient number of voters, and it wasn't rejected, and it passed. The 2 %, although the Clerk did say it was insufficient, the Council said no, add those in. And there was the cannabis, which was clearly way short, and the Council put it on anyway. I don't really think anyone has been disenfranchised. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a pending motion by Mr. Shumway to amend the language of CA -12 by deleting the reference to residence address in section 15 -1. Is everybody ready to vote? MR. HOOKANO: I would actually like to check the procedure on that one, according to Robert's Rules, because this was a motion that was made and approved at the last meeting and what the procedure is on rescinding something that was previously adopted by this commission; whether that is a dilatory motion or not. MR. GOODENOW: Based on my understanding, you just can't amend what you already amended. You can't undo an amendment that you already did, that would be considered dilatory; but there may be other avenues for reaching that objective. You could suspend the rules. MR. HOOKANO: Just as a general note; the rules aren't there to bind your hands, they are there to kind of guide you within the process of a smooth meeting. So if this Commission does want to move forward with that motion; that is the Commission's prerogative. In my experience, there is probably a proper motion to do it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, can we pass on this and come back to it; and move on to CA -13? MR. HOOKANO: If you would like to postpone it to the end of the agenda that would be wise. It would require a motion and a vote. 54 CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, do I have a motion to postpone CA -12 to the end of our agenda? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to postpone further discussion on CA -12 to the end of the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -13 MANDATORY CHARTER REVIEW Amends Section 15 -3. This charter amendment proposes to increase the amount of time the Commission has to complete its work. Currently the commission is appointed by the fifteenth of January of a charter review year, and this amendment would change the date to the first day of July prior to the charter review year to give the commission more time to thoroughly review the charter. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -13 at second reading? Ms. Kawauchi moved to approve CA -13 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CA -14: LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR - (Draft 2) Amends Section 13 -18 of the Hawaii County Charter by allowing the legislative auditor to retain independent legal counsel without having to go to the county council for approval, exempts the legislative auditor from the provisions of Section 6 -5.5 of the charter, and amends Section 10 -13 of the Hawaii County Charter by removing the mandatory provision that an audit or investigation be conducted upon the death, resignation, removal or expiration of the term of any county administrative officer and making this provision discretionary. 55 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -14? Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -14 at second reading. Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recues myself from discussion and voting on this issue since my wife works for Corporation Counsel and represents the Legislative Auditor. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway is excused. We have Mr. Ashida who provided us some correspondence on this. Mr. Ashida LINCOLN ASHIDA (At this time Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. ASHIDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon members of the Commission. I really have nothing further to add to what I submitted to you in writing; but I would be more than happy to address any specific questions you have with respect to the narrow issue concerning the authority to hire independent counsel. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Ashida, I think the question I have for you is, if we amended this Section, your recommendation would be that we would also have to amend Section 6 -5.5? That is the section that sets forth your authority over certain departments of the county government. MR. ASHIDA: That is one way to do it. The other way is - - -You see, presently, under our current Charter and government structure, the corporation counsel represents all county departments, officers, and agencies working in their official capacity. So, we do, in fact, represent the Legislative Auditor. Assuming there is an instance where special counsel is necessary, the Legislative Auditor wants to hire special counsel; that can happen now. That can happen right now pursuant to the section that Chairman Haitsuka mentioned; it goes through the Council process, which I think is a good process. It provides for appropriate checks and balances. You need a two thirds vote of the Council. There must be a demonstration of real, quote, "real" necessity; so it's not just because I want it, it's because there is a real necessity before we spend tax payers dollars. Along those lines, you have to state ahead of time what is the exact amount you are going to pay special counsel. That can happen now. I guess my concerns that I expressed about hiring independent legal counsel; I read that to mean something 56 completely different from special counsel. As I indicated in my submission to you, it just creates far - reaching ethical, conflicting issues that frankly, if the Charter Commission goes down that road, then I'm looking, at that point, at the cost based on the history that this County has spent on special counsel. In order to minimize cost to our taxpayers, the only prudent and responsible thing would be to say, then, if that's the case we shouldn't represent her from the get -go. If we do, you have basically taken our office completely off the landscape; because we can't represent her, we can't represent any county officer or department because the Auditor is a former client, as defined by our rules of professional conduct. You guys keep on looking up; am I missing something? MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. Is there anything is this proposed amendment that would be binding? In my reading of it, it just says that she is granted the additional authority to retain independent legal counsel. I add "additional" it doesn't say you have to do it. I thought you were saying basically you could do it right now if you wanted to. MR. ASHIDA: Yes, if there is any county department, agency, officer, or employee, and there is a demonstrated necessity for the hiring of special counsel, that can occur now. MR. KAULUKUKUI: So placing it in the Charter is superfluous? We don't need to do that because we can do it anyway? MR. ASHIDA: That is partially correct, yes. But also, I don't know what independent legal counsel is. I know what special counsel is because that carries with it certain requirements and safeguards and checks and balances that are in our Charter. But there is no definition of what independent legal counsel is. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Is there any situation where a special counsel might be an attorney currently working for the County? MR. ASHIDA: No. MR. KAULUKUKUI: So, is there any situation where an independent legal counsel could be working for the County? MR. ASHIDA: I don't know what independent legal counsel is. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I guess I would say that from my point of view, I think they are kind of the same. Neither one is currently working for the County. That is just my opinion and would be my interpretation. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? We have Ms. Schrandt in Hilo. 57 COLLEEN SCHRANDT (At this time Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. SCHRANDT: The intent of the request, or this proposed amendment, was for a very specific and limited situation. While I'm glad that Mr. Ashida recognizes that in some rare circumstances that situation my arise and we might have the need to actually go out and hire special counsel, I'm a little surprised that he feels that that means we have to go from the possibility of doing that to absolutely no representation from corporation counsel at all. My office, at this point, is very, very comfortable, confident in, and happy with our corporation counsel representative. Again, this request was only for a situation where possibly we would be actually auditing the council or corporation counsel and it might be inappropriate to follow the procedures set out currently to request hiring of a special counsel. And that is the only time that it would come into play; which maybe it never will, but in the event that it does, it is my job to make sure that the office has the capability to fulfill our duties and responsibilities. I think it would be very costly; I know Mr. Ashida is saying it would be costly for his office to do it the way it is worded here, but the other side of that is if we are forced to go out and hire special counsel whenever we have any question as to legality of something, the budget for my office is going to increase substantially. I don't think it is in the taxpayers or the county's best interest to do that. I think it is going to be the rare circumstance that would require us to do this. In every other event, we are perfectly capable of working with corporation counsel. KATHRYN GARSON (At this time Kathy Garson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. GARSON: Mr. Chairman, can I add something? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Ms. Garson, please proceed. MS. GARSON: One of the other things is the provision regarding representing of a former client. There is a savings clause in there. It basically says, and Mr. Ashida quoted it, that a former client can consent that we represent another person in the same or substantially related matter. So there is a little savings in there, even in that rare situation where that kind of conflict would arise; the legislative auditor still can consent. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Ashida do you have any further comments? MR. ASHIDA: Since you asked, that would presuppose that whoever is sitting in that position would be as nice as Ms. Schrandt to consent, number one; and number two, I think that issue did come up when the county was confronted with the hiring of multiple special counsels in the William Silva versus the County of Hawaii case.; the alleged police examination case, which for the record, predates my time. I think I have stated my position. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MS. SCHRANDT: May I make one last comment? CHR. HAITSUKA: Go ahead. MS. SCHRANDT: Again, the intent of putting this forth was certainly not to make it a far reaching authority for the legislative auditor's office. I need to make sure that the office can do what they are mandated to do. But I don't, and I didn't see this as creating any far reaching authority for the legislative auditor. If there is a way to possibly amend this so that it isn't seen as that, I am amenable to that. All I want to do is make sure that we have, in the remote event that the situation arises, that we do have the capability to fulfill our duties. MR. ASHIDA: Mr. Chairman, now I do want to respond. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Ashida. MR. ASHIDA: My question still is what is wrong with the current process now? It requires three things; demonstration of real necessity before we spend taxpayer money, knowing how much we are going to spend, and requiring a two thirds vote of the council, which is the check and balance within the system? MS. SCHRANDT: In probably 95% of the cases, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but there is that possibility that the situation will arise; again; if we were auditing the council or auditing corporation counsel where we could be prevented, given the process that is currently set out, from doing what we are supposed to do. MR. ASHIDA: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond. In that 5% you can take us out of the mix, because we don't have voting authority anyways. It comes down to the council. But, that being said, maybe you need to write that into it. If we are going to pursue this any further then it needs to be spelled out specifically that in the case of the council this will happen. The way it's written right now, it is just too broad. Go out and hire who you want, you don't even have to say why; it doesn't even say you have to follow procurement. We are sensitive about spending money for contract employees for this county; especially legal fees. If the problem is the 5% for the council, let's deal with that. MS. SCHRANDT: I think my office is legally obligated to follow procurement laws no matter what. So I don't think that would really be an issue. I would have no problem 59 with leaving the current language as it is under Article III, Section 3 -18 (f) (4) and possibly adding either a subsection (g) or under the current corporation counsel section, adding wording to the effect that for the purpose of carrying out an audit of the county council or corporation counsel; the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent legal counsel. That would narrow it to a very specific set of circumstances. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I have a question for Mr. Hookano. In terms of procedure, so we don't take a step back when we really want to take a step forward. If we were to basically change our mind on everything that is lined through and say we want it back in there now, do we fall into the same situation that you were researching for us on the previous amendment; trying to reverse an amendment? MR. HOOKANO: The stricken through portion is what is in the Charter now. So that type of amendment wouldn't be in the same kind of situation that was previously discussed. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Okay, so we could say we have changed our mind and we want that back in with the current amendment that is on the table. MR. HOOKANO: Keeping that in, is essentially voting this amendment down. That is essentially what it is, to keep this amendment in. If you want to add something new to that provision, then that is another question. It would be a whole new amendment; by saying after that sentence that the auditor may retain special counsel in a manner authorized by the council to represent the auditor in implementing these powers in certain situations. That becomes a whole other question. That is permissible. MR. KAULUKUKUI: In the spirit of what I would like to see if we can do; and that would limit this authority that we are proposing to grant under item (5) by further amending it perhaps, rather than doing anything that would take us backwards. We just further amend that, correct? MR. HOOKANO: Correct. MR. UNGER: I'm in favor of adopting her language. In the case of auditing the corporation counsel or the county council, the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent legal counsel, or something along those lines. CHR. HAITSUKA: So your motion would be to add in; what was the language again? MR. UNGER: Ms. Schrandt, would you like to repeat what you said; you said it better than I. .e] MS. SCHRANDT: I think I actually quoted the wrong section. It actually would be leaving the proposed change under Article III, Section 3 -18 (f) (5) and then adding a subsection (g). MR. UNGER: Why don't we just leave (5) alone and add to it. MS. SCHRANDT: Okay, so it's just adding the language, "For the purpose of carrying out an audit of the county council or corporation counsel, the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent legal counsel. MR. UNGER: I have one other question on that one too. Lincoln, I don't understand what is the benefit of using special independent counsel? MR. ASHIDA: There is already a provision in the Charter which uses the language and definition special counsel, that term. With that come the safeguards that I talked about. There first needs to be a real necessity. In other words, you can't just hire a lawyer because you want to or, you don't like the one you have. There is demonstrated legal need. Generally that is in the form of a conflict of interest or otherwise. Number two, it requires you go to the council to get approval, and that is a two - thirds vote of the council, not a majority vote, but a two - thirds vote. And thirdly, it requires that the amount that we are going to pay, the amount of taxpayer's funds we are going to expend, be stated up front; and the council needs to approve that. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair, I think item two in what you said in the string of three different conditions is probably the one that we would like to try to avoid; the council having some say in whether or not, in a limited situation, whether or not the auditor can get special counsel or independent legal council, or whatever we are going to call it. We want some wording to allow for that. I suppose that is the resistance to using the term special counsel. CHR. HAITSUKA: So the motion is to adopt the language suggested by the legislative auditor, which was replacing the language in subsection (f)(5) with the language, "For the purpose of auditing the county council or corporation counsel, the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent counsel." Is that your motion? Mr. Unger moved to amend CA -14 by replacing the language in subsection (f)(5) with the language, "For the purpose of auditing the county council or the corporation counsel, the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent counsel." Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? I am still concerned with the conflict issue. I need to wrap my mind around it. I know part of the issue is about the cost, but the conflict issue, I'm still not totally clear on. I don't know how to get passed that. They refer to rule 1.9 of our rules of professional conduct. I think you can waive certain 61 conflicts, and some are not able to be waived. So I still haven't gotten passed that, and how the interplay between the corporation counsels, and the statutes that govern the corporation counsel. I just don't know if this resolves the conflict issue that could arise. MS. KAWAUCHI: Would it be possible to get a memo, before we make further decision on this matter? I think that question is pretty important. Whether or not an attorney has an ethical obligation, I think that may be something we may want to look at a little bit more closely. CHR. HAITSUKA: I agree, I think we have to understand the impact if we add that language here, how does that impact other portions of the Charter with respect to what the corporation counsel's duties and obligations are. I don't know if we have to make changes elsewhere in order to effect the change here. That is my concern. I can't get a grasp of the full extent of any kind of conflict. I can see one in some situations that might arise. MR. ASHIDA: Mr. Chairman. The only conflict you are talking about, when you come down to it is the conflict with the council. The reason is that if the corporation counsel is audited, there is no question that the clerk is going to get special counsel through the existing provision in the Charter, because that would be a real necessity. That is a situation where the conflict is on all fours. Any lawyer who doesn't recognize that conflict, at that point you don't need the disciplinary council to tell you are in conflict. I think that situation is taken cared of You are right; the one in the 5% the auditor is talking about. One thought I had is that what you are talking about is authorizing the hiring of special counsel in the event the council is audited. I think that is good; that is obviously a good thing because under the present system they are the ones who vote whether you should have special counsel or not. I don't know where this is going to end up, but one thing I can sense is that Levi is going to get asked to research this. There is authority out there concerning the ability or lack thereof of a legislative body of a municipality to abdicate that responsibility. So, that is going to be another layer or issue if we go down that road. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: Isn't there a section in the rules that talks about potential conflicts as well? CHR. HAITSUKA: I think there is a section on present and past. MS. KAWAUCHI: Present and past, and in the case of - - -I think this requires research, but my question is if an attorney is aware that there is a potential conflict, are we precluded from representation of a particular client? CHR. HAITSUKA: I can't recall. I always follow the rules, but I can't recall that one. It might be appropriate to look into this a little bit further so we ensure that if we pass this amendment we have covered all the bases with regards to how it might affect other 62 provisions in the Charter. We have motion on the table right now. Mr. Hookano, if we wanted to have you look at this, what would be the process from here? MR. HOOKANO: You would make a motion to postpone this matter to the next meeting. When the matter comes up at the next meeting, there would already be a pending motion to approve, and also a pending motion to amend. There would be two things on the floor. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to postpone? Mr. Unger moved to postpone CA -14 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano can we get a memorandum as to how the current proposed amendment to CA -14 may impact other sections of the Charter and any potential conflicts that might arise for the corporation counsel. MR. HOOKANO: Yes, I'll get that prior to the next meeting. CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't know if I framed that correctly. Does anyone else have any input on that? Let's move on to CA -15. CA -15: LAND FUND - (Draft 2) Establishes a public access, open space, and natural resources preservation fund and commission and establishes procedures for the lands to be selected for preservation. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -15? MS. KAWAUCHI: I wanted to make a motion to amend. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have to make a motion to approve first. Ms. Kawauchi moved to approve CA -15 at second reading. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Kawauchi. 63 MS. KAWAUCHI: My motion is to amend the second draft of proposed charter amendment CA -15. My motion is to change the current language from not less than 1/2%, or in places where it talks about 1/2% back to 2 %. The motion might bear on the research question that Mr. Hookano was looking at earlier concerning amendments of proposals for charter amendments that effect previous amendments or proposals for charter amendments. I have an opinion; and I'm curious to know what Mr. Hookano's is. CHR. HAITSUKA: Just a minute. You have that motion pending. Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend CA -15 Draft 2 by changing all references to "not less than 0.5% back to 2 %. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? I think this question relates to what Mr. Hookano is researching. I believe Mr. Nahale -a made a motion initially to amend the current draft. MR. HOOKANO: This would relate to both situations. You could likely have a motion to rescind something that was previously adopted. MR. SHUMWAY: Would that take two motions? MR. HOOKANO: No, the motion to rescind is basically a form of a motion to amend; to rescind something previously adopted. You would be rescinding the amendment that took place at the original meeting; at the first meeting that this was taken up. MR. SHUMWAY: How many votes does it take to pass? MR. HOOKANO: I believe that is a majority of the board. However, if you rehash something over and over it is considered dilatory. I think we are holding the same copy of Robert's Rules. On page 132, Improper Amendments, (2) One that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion; and under (3) One that would make the question as amended identical with or contrary to one previously decided by the assembly during the same session or previously considered and still not finally disposed of or within the control of the assembly. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, what does that mean in English? MR. HOOKANO: It basically says that if the commission decided a question to amend previously; and the idea is that there was an opportunity to vote that amendment down when it first came up, and then you bring it back again before this proposed amendment has been disposed of, which means the final vote. This amendment is still alive; you can still make amendments to it and decide questions related to it. So, the idea is that once business has been transacted related to this, going back again and rehashing the same question over and over becomes an improper motion. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I have a question for Mr. Hookano. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Does that mean that if we change the percentage, can we get around that? What if the motion was not to go back to 2 %, but go to 3 %? MR. HOOKANO: That would make it a substantially different question; in which case it is deciding something different. CHR. HAITSUKA: How about a motion for reconsideration? MR. HOOKANO: There are usually time limits associated with motions to reconsider; that is usually one meeting period. I can't recall which meeting it was that this was changed from 2% to 1/2%. MR. SHUMWAY: It was in November. MR. HOOKANO: Then the time limit for reconsideration of that question would have lapsed. It would have had to have been at the next meeting. That would have been the December meeting. Mr. Chair, would you like to take a brief recess? RECESS: At 3:50 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 4:03 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, have you completed your research? MR. HOOKANO: The research, right now, is inconclusive. But as the Chair of the Commission, it is really your call on how to interpret the rules. And it is up to you if you wanted to allow this to go through as a permissible motion and it would be subject to the appeal of the Commission. If the Commission doesn't agree with your ruling, they can make a motion to overrule the Chair and take a vote on that matter. CHR. HAITSUKA: My decision is to let the motion go forward. So, we have a pending motion that has been seconded; is there any discussion on Ms. Kawauchi's motion? Ms. Kawauchi's motion is to change the references from 0.5% to 2 %. Is there any discussion? Ms. Osborne. MS. OSBORNE: Can you give your reasoning? 65 MS. KAWAUCHI: First of all, I would say that I appreciate the Commission's previous vote. I think everyone head testimony and made a decision that they felt comfortable with and then moved forward. But, I haven't changed my belief from my vote in November until now; and I don't think I am going to change my belief what the overwhelming support of the voters was; and their intent when they voted on this issues to place 2% of the County's funds into the Land Fund to be used in support of the perpetuation of public open space, agricultural lands, watersheds, natural resources, preservation of historic places. Their intent was really to ensure that 2% of the funds were set aside for that purpose. What I don't want to do, though, is make this an either -or proposition for our government or for our people. Although I appreciate the passionate and the very eloquent testimony provided by our members of government and also by the community, I am wary and not real comfortable with us saying this decision to place this in the Charter means that anyone has made a decision that intentionally is trying to jeopardize any of our community values or beliefs. I think that the Administration's decision to set funds aside, and the Council's decision to set the money aside not for purposes of the 2% Land Fund in previous sessions, but to use them for other purposes to balance the budget; I don't think we should go back and rehash that or blame anybody for it. I just think it was a decision that was made, and people thought it was the best decision at the time. Having said that, I think going forward, we need to make a decision to look at the Land Fund to be set aside in perpetuity or until such time as another Charter amendment comes to uphold what the voters wanted and also to create an environment that is consistent with our County's mission and beliefs. I do believe that - -and I think the Charter supports this- - people in our County believe open space, preservation of natural resources, preservation of watersheds, preservation of agriculture is very important. I think also that setting the 2% aside in the Charter is not inconsistent with previous testimony concerning the importance of agricultural lands as put forward by Commissioner Nahale -a and Commissioner Fuertes. Basically to me, it's looking at the whole puzzle, as opposed to looking at separate puzzle pieces. Now, I would like to note that there has been a lot of discussion about the tough economic times that we are in. But, I want to alert us to the fact that Theodore Roosevelt, a depression era president, during the depression era decided that National Parks were important and created several National Parks during the depression era. So, I think that, following who many regard to be one of our greatest presidents I our nation; following his perspectives and believes on retaining open space for the public good, is something that I think we can think about when balancing tough economic times with the public's need for open space, public parks and open spaces. I actually don't think that tough economic times and setting aside the 2% fund, are inconsistent at all. I did a little bit of research between November and now, and found out that land values and property values - -one argument is-- actually are increased or rise when a residential area is located near an open space. So, actually, property values are increased by having and preserving places of natural beauty and areas where people can access the beaches and public places. .. There might be another argument that people who are interested in developing properties want to get close to an area of natural beauty or natural resource as possible. And I don't think that 2% is inconsistent with that. People will still have an opportunity to purchase or develop land that is near an open space. I actually don't think there is an inconsistency between economic development and growth and setting aside 2% of the County's revenues to go toward preservation of open space and preserving public parks. The other part of it is; I did a little bit of research on the viewpoints of park directors in different states. One of the articles I pulled out concerns a park director in New York City. According to an article that I read which was in a children's health magazine, his perspective was that he wishes that the city of New York had had the foresight to set aside more parks. Central Park is regarded as a great park in Manhattan; but it is not enough according to this park director. So, again, places where real estate value is very high, you still have a state park director who believes that setting aside property for public use is still a good and best use of land in an area for which there is very little land. So those are my thoughts. Maybe one concluding thought is that I also think that if there is a question about whether or not we have to set aside 2% of the County's revenues for the land fund as opposed to raising taxes, I actually don't believe that is an all or nothing proposition. I think that is a false dilemma. I think there are other alternatives to balancing the budget. And I think I am asking a lot of the administration and of the public, but basically I would like to find another creative way to be able to do that. So, that's it for me for now, unless there are any questions. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: In the last go- around, I supported the 1/2% but since that time, my tendency right now is to support this proposed amendment at 2 %; for a different reason. I think the primary reason is that I think 1/2% is too low. I don't think it would provide us with an opportunity to preserve and to secure open spaces by obtaining title. I think at 2 %, we can do that. I think at 2 %, what we do is place the interest of speculators and developers in the same boat as the interest in people who want to preserve open space. Because, as developers develop space, and as speculators buy and flip properties, property values go up. As property values go up, property tax revenue goes up. As that goes up 2% of whatever that value is, starts to increase too. So the ability to secure open space through this mechanism actually goes up with economic activity in terms of land development. The other thing is the 2% doesn't really hand -cuff the County. The County can pass that 2% on to us through an increase in the property tax rate; which actually I would really encourage them to do because that places the responsibility of paying for this proposal on the community, where I think it should be placed. And so I don't see this as an either or, I see this as something where actually we can work together. The County is not hand- 67 cuffed by this; the County can pass it on to us. And as I said, I truly believe they should. It puts us in a partnership to preserve open space. MS. KAWAUCHI: Can I add something very short? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I don't think it is the intention of the Commission or the intention of our government administration, but if we don't at least put 2% back into the proposed amendment, I think there is another very bad side effect; which is voter confidence may be eroded. It appears to me that there is an expectation that there be consistency; whether 2% appears in the ordinance, or appears in the Charter. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Osborne. MS. OSBORNE: I just have some concerns with the misunderstanding around the intention of this; because there is so much passion around this issue. Personally, I support the 2 %, but the intent of this, coming back to the original intent; is that in the event that there is a tough time, like there is right now, this fund can be raided. The 2% is still intact, and the public doesn't seem to understand that. That law does not change. It's just in the event that we are in a situation like we are now that the Mayor and the Council have to go through the difficult process of raiding this fund, but it just doesn't happen automatically. It is putting a safety floor on it, so that at the very least, '/z% is going to be contributed. But, in normal circumstances, it will continue to be the 2 %. I think there is a misunderstanding around that. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I just want to address that point. I agree with you, this is a safety net. In terms of having tried to explain that to folks over the last month, no, it's not making sense. And that being the case, I think there has to be a better way to go after it. I do think that going back to the 2 %, which automatically gives the County the ability to pass that on to us if they chose to do so, solves all the problems. MS. KAWAUCHI: I think leaving it at 0.5% still presents a problem. I actually feel pretty clear that I understand what I am suggesting; which is that the 2% be a mandatory set - aside. The reason for that is because I think that is what was voted on. I don't think 0.5% does the job in our county with the number of taxpayers we have. It doesn't come close to even a 1% in another jurisdiction. If we keep it at 0.5 %, sure, the County Council can always vote to amend up, but I just don't see it happening. MS. OSBORNE: No, they would have to amend down. It is at 2% no matter what. It is in the ordinance. MS. KAWAUCHI: But they can decide to not apply it for that purpose? MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair. .: CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway, you have a comment. MR. SHUMWAY: In the County Code, it is currently there. There is a 2% set - aside, and none of this changes that. I think, since Mr. Nahale -a is not here, I'll play his role. I am very concerned about micro - managing the County through the Charter. I think that this is an example of doing that. I personally support it at 2 %, but I think that we have to be very careful about creating these kinds of significant barriers for the County to function in tough economic times. We have heard lots of testimony in support of the 2 %, but not much of that has addressed real financial issues in how to address budget short- falls. I am very concerned about that, and the understanding that the County Code still has a 2% set - aside, so this doesn't affect that. MS. KAWAUCHI: Just to follow up on that. We don't have any amendments that address financial short- falls. So, I don't think we have had a discussion about that. What discussion we have had about the County's budget is that 75% of the budget is fixed costs; although I have never really closely looked at it. My understanding though is that some of the fixed costs are attributed to budget items that may not be filled. For example, there are jobs, positions that are budgeted for; but there is a hiring freeze. So some of that money is being held and not going to be applied this year. So, I still think that for perpetuity it makes sense to me to put 2% into the Charter. I go back to the idea that when you are in bad times, you still need places to go, and not setting the money aside now is going to hurt the County in the end. It is not consistent with its values. I just go back to that. I think we can decide on how many - - -I have yet to see somebody show me a budget that says that necessary County expenditures are being hurt by 2 %. I haven't seen it. Nobody showed me that setting aside 2% is going to hurt law enforcement, or fire, or safety. I haven't seen it. I have not seen a budget that says-- - Again, the reason that I haven't asked for it is that I'm not interested in micro - managing the County, myself. What I do want to do is fulfill the intent of the voters; which was 63% of the voters wanted 2 %, and that is what I am trying to do. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: To address a couple of Mr. Shumway's issues; I think one of the reasons we want to look at bringing this into the Code even though it is in the ordinance, is that we saw that the ordinance could be suspended; and there is no provision to prevent that from happening going forward. So that is one reason to bring it in here. To address the other issue in terms of not wanting to micro - manage; certainly I don't want to do that either, and I don't think this micro - manages the County. As I said, the County can pass that on; and I'll say it for the third time, I encourage them to do it. I think it is something that we all should pay a share of. I think it was Mr. Jacobs who said it, right there at that table. He quantified it in terms of how many dollars per month would have come out of his property tax bill to contribute to 2 %; and it was nominal. we CHR. HAITSUKA: I would agree to him if I paid $800 per year. I don't pay $800 per year. MR. KAULUKUKUI: But, it is still 2% of whatever anybody is paying. MR. SHUMWAY: I absolutely agree with you, but I don't think it is that easy. You can't wave a wand and raise property taxes. That is a process; and it's a political process. I'm not so sure the voters are going to say we want to pay 2% to a Land Fund but also say I'll support you if you want to raise my property taxes. I don't think politics works that way. The other thing I would say is that I think there is a mechanism actually. We have, in the County Code, a 2% set - aside. If people are unhappy with the way the Mayor and the County Council have used that, it is called the ballot. In two years there is an election, and you can replace people. And you can make that a campaign issue. I think that is an important consideration. I think we have that in place. It's an ordinance, it's in the County Code; it's there. The intention of this is as a floor, and as a way to ensure that at least some funds get put into this Land Fund without putting the County into an impossible situation. That is my concern. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Briefly, I think it is a political process to change the tax rate; but it is not difficult. It happens in most Counties in most years. Both the Mayor's office and the Council have the opportunity to do that, and often times do in multiple proposed resolutions relative to tax rates come up on an annual basis. So, that is one thing. The other thing is I think the mechanism that you alluded to in terms of being able to voice our concerns with our actual vote is the same mechanism that can breathe a check in the balance on whether or not the Council and the Mayor do pursue passing that on to us. MS. KAWAUCHI: I wanted to note that in our November meeting, although Ms. Hecht had proposed this amendment, we never took testimony from her. So, I'm interested to know what her position might be on going from 0.5% to 2 %. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you want to call her up? MS. KAWAUCHI: I would like to. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Hecht. DEBBIE HECHT (At this time Debbie Hecht came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HECHT: Aloha Commissioners. As far as 1/2%, it would result in like $1 million dollars a year. The great gift of the Land Fund is that you get matching funds; usually dollar for dollar. Well, there is nothing on the Open Space Commission's list that is only 70 $2 million dollars, so it won't go anywhere. That is the first problem; the second problem is that right now on the Open Space Commission's list, I believe there is $26.7 million dollars worth of properties to acquire. So, even at 2 %, which is $4 million dollars a year, we are not going to have that much money to do much. So, yes, it should be at least 2 %. And a far as micro - managing or tying the hands of the County; I sat through three months of budget hearings begging them not to suspend the 2% funds. There were 426 jobs that were funded, but not filled. They only cut 55 of those; there was $1 million dollars spent on the Hilo golf course, in maintenance every year. There is $300,000 spent on the band in Hilo and $78,000 spent in Kona on the band. I'm not saying that any of these things are good or bad, I'm just trying to give you an idea of places, and what the County spends their money on. I've been a small business owner for 35 years. I can cut 1% of any budget anywhere. And although 2% for the Land Fund is 2% of the revenue stream that is put into the Land Fund account twice per year, really, in terms of the overall County budget of $4 hundred million, it is only 1 %. Really, the check and balance on this Charter amendment - -the way I would look at it as a Charter Commissioner - -would be to put it on the ballot and see is the people go for it again. By putting it down at 0.5 %, it is really micro - managing voters; 63% of voters. I think, frankly, it is disrespectful to say, "You didn't know what you were voting for, so we'll put it down to 0.5 %." They knew what they were voting for. One further thing; when I submitted this amendment, it was to replace the County Code. It wasn't in addition to it. So, that is really a large source of confusion. Frankly, I don't think that the 2% will ever come back, if it is not passed as a Charter amendment. It has been so wildly unpopular by the Kenoi administration and the Kim administration. The legislation to ax the 2% fund was the first piece of legislation introduced by the Kenoi administration. And that was before the budget even came out. So they were already trying to cut the fund before we could even look at the budget to try to find other places to cut that money. To tell you that is just to show you how unpopular this is. So, I think I leave it to you, hopefully, to honor 63% of voters who voted for this in 2006. Please put it on the ballot again; see what they say. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Osborne. MS. OSBORNE: Could I just get a clarifying question with regards to this suspension of the 2% fund. What is the definition of time that is related to; is that a two year biennium budget that this has been suspended; the monies going into the 2 %? MR. HOOKANO: The Land Fund money was suspended for two years; that would be until June 30, 2011. So, July 1, 2011, that suspension will automatically terminate. MS. OSBORNE: So for it to be taken off again, it would have to go through a whole other process/ MR. HOOKANO: Right, there would have to be another bill put forward by the County Council for approval. 71 CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Hecht. Ms. Crawford, do you have anything to add to this issue? NANCY CRAWFORD (At this time Nancy Crawford, Finance Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. CRAWFORD: I would only add that there was one reference to Federal government and their investment in open space; and I would like to make a point that here in the County of Hawaii, we are required to make a balanced budget, which is one difference. This is, as Ms. Hecht said, although she is referring to it as a portion of the entire County budget, actually where it is significant is in our General Fund. And it is a larger percentage of our General Fund. We have significant short-falls going forward into the next fiscal year. We are reducing staffing, we are cutting expenditures, and we are cutting many amounts way under $1 million dollars everywhere. In order to say that open space has a higher priority than all of those items, I just want to make clear that that is what you are saying. The point here is really about the amount. If we go to 2 %, we will be two to four times higher than any other county in the state. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: If it is at 2 %, it is higher than the other counties; but in terms of actual revenue, I don't think it is higher than the other counties. I think at 2 %, it is probably about the same as the other counties that have lower percentages for the Land Fund. Secondly, I don't think it was intended with the motion to amend it back to 2 %, to say that we don't value - -as a commission or me speaking as a commissioner -- necessities of government, including government jobs. That is not what is being said here. What is being said is, there are other solutions to providing a balanced budget. I think it is important for us to consider what those solutions are; particularly when 63% of the voters voted - -and there is no information provided so far to me, that they didn't know what they were voting for when they voted - -they wanted this 2% fund. Based on Ms. Hecht's testimony, if we don't set this aside, we are not going to fulfill the objectives of the fund because we don't have enough money in the fund to purchase the proposed properties that are being listed. Again, historic preservation, areas of natural beauty, beaches, watersheds, ag lands; all of which, I think as a Commission, we have stated, our values of our County. And all of those are stated in our state government as values of our state government. And values that are stated in land use rules. I think we really need to think very clearly about that. I do not think it is an all or nothing situation. I don't think it is a matter of raising taxes versus 2 %. I don't think it is a matter of 2% versus a balanced budget. I don't think it's a matter of balancing the budget and axing all necessities of government. But it is a question of what are we valuing as a community. Are we going to look in perpetuity; are we going to think - - -I cannot say that the 2% ordinance has created an unbalanced budget for our County. I don't think it is the creation of it. I also don't think it is going to solve any of the problems. Even is we take the money out of the fund and apply it to other areas of the budget, we are still in 72 shortfalls. It is not the cause of County budget problems, and it is not going to be the solution. I think we should go back to the intention of our community; put our feet in the sand and say what is important to us. And it is the bigger picture. It is not today, it is tomorrow; it's not tomorrow, it is forever. I think we really need to think hard about that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi, you asked Mr. Jon Olsen to remain. He is still in Hilo; I think as a matter of courtesy, is it time to call him? MS. KAWAUCHI: It would be good to call him. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Olsen. MS. CRAWFORD: He just stepped out, but he is here and he has waited all this time, so he will perhaps be back in just a minute. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. MR. UNGER: Can I just make comment? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: I think, if at all possible, with regards to this issue which is a very hot topic, and it will be difficult, but I think as commissioners we need to remove our personal thoughts as far as whether we like 2 %, don't like 2 %. I think the key issue here is that the public has definitely spoken, and by virtue that we have moved on to the second reading of this; in some form, this needs to be an amendment; at least put out there for the voters to vote on. My concern is what form is that going to take. At this point, I would have a hard time voting for this second draft, because this is not a Charter amendment, this is essentially an ordinance. I definitely agree, we need to move it forward. As far as the percentage, I'm just sitting back and listening. I don't know what that percentage is. But, at some point we need to take a look at Nancy's verbiage. I have, and I have also compared it to what Oahu, Maui, and Kauai have. And it is very similar to what the other counties did as far as what the actual amendment contains. MS. KAWAUCHI: What I was hoping to do was get passed the percentage issue and then talk about the other aspects of it in another session. MR. UNGER: So how would we do that? CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a current motion pending. I think Mr. Olsen might be back. MR. UNGER: I think we would also have to agree to amend and incorporate Nancy's language in order to consider different language. 73 MS. KAWAUCHI: We don't have a motion yet though. MR. UNGER: I know, I'm just saying, if we get to that point. MS. CRAWFORD: If I may interject. We have decided that apparently Mr. Olsen left; not long ago, but apparently he has left so I don't think you need to wait for his testimony as you move forward. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. So, we have a motion pending right now, and it has been seconded. Is there any further discussion on Ms. Kawauchi's motion? No further discussion, we are ready for a vote. Let's do it by roll -call. The motion to amend CA -15 Draft 2 by changing all references to "not less than 0.5% back to 2% failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Shumway and Unger Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: So, Ms. Kawauchi's motion failed. Next, we have the principal motion still pending. MR. HOOKANO: Right, you are back on the main motion. CHR. HAITSUKA: And, we have Communication 105, from Finance Director Nancy Crawford, dated November 5, 2009. COMM. 105: From Finance Director, Nancy Crawford, dated November 5, 2009, providing alternative language to the amended proposal, and transmitting copies of language used by other Hawaii counties in their charters. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to substitute? Is that right, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: If that is the Commission's desire, it would be a motion to substitute. It is a form of a motion to amend. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to substitute the language proposed by Nancy Crawford in Communication 105, for the present language contained in CA -15? MS. KAWAUCHI: I have a question about this. 74 CHR. HAITSUKA: Before we can have discussion, we have got to have a motion. MS. KAWAUCHI: My question affects the question you presented, which is if we can have a motion to amend or substitute based on Communication 105. I have a question about that. CHR. HAITSUKA: A procedural question? MS. KAWAUCHI: Yes, a procedural question. MR. HOOKANO: That would be a point of order. MS. KAWAUCHI: Okay, so point of order. MR. HOOKANO: That is permissible. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, it's permissible for us to address that before we make the motion? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, because she has a question about procedure; it would be a point of order. MS. KAWAUCHI: The question that I have is - -and actually it is a concern that I have- - that Communication 105, although written as a communication, almost appears to me as though it is a proposed Charter amendment, and not a motion to amend. It almost feels to me like it is a proposed Charter amendment; that it is being submitted as a communication in order to not require a 2/3 vote of the majority. So how do we solve that question? MR. HOOKANO: Well, there are two parts to that. First, a motion to amend has to be germane to what is being considered. The Commission must determine if this is related to what CA -15 is. By making a motion to amend, if you were to use the language provided by Nancy Crawford; is it related to the main motion that is being considered. If it is, then it is purely a motion to amend, and you can use the language she has provided. So, it would not require 2/3, it would be a majority vote. MS. KAWAUCHI: The question I have though is not whether or not an amendment is proper. What my question is is using the word substitute; which to me means replace in its entirety with new text which appears a lot different than what was previously proposed. MR. HOOKANO: That is precisely what a motion to substitute is. And it's contained in Robert's Rules as a motion to substitute; to replace entire text of a proposal. MS. KAWAUCHI: So, that's a proper question. 75 MR. HOOKANO: It's a proper amendment. The question is it germane; is it related to what is first being considered? The initial thing being considered is the Land Fund, and is the language being substituted germane to the main motion. That is what the Commission has to decide. MS. KAWAUCHI: I think the answer is that Communication 105, substituting language in its entirety for CA -15 is a proper vehicle for replacing full text language. CHR. HAITSUKA: Are you asking the question of Mr. Hookano? MS. KAWAUCHI: No, I'm just clarifying that that is your read on it. MR. HOOKANO: That is what the motion to substitute is. It's a motion to replace whole paragraphs and sections of - -- MS. KAWAUCHI: And it's not a proposed amendment? MR. HOOKANO: A motion to substitute is a form of amendment in terms of procedure, but I think we are talking about two different types of -- MS. KAWAUCHI: My concern was that I wouldn't want this to be in and of itself a Charter amendment submitted as a communication. That was just my concern, because it just appears like it is replacing everything. And we have a deadline for that, so we would have to move to agendize an amendment as opposed to this motion to substitute. That was my procedural question. MR. HOOKANO: The thing is, is that CA -15 is placed on the agenda as a Land Fund amendment to the Charter. Ms. Crawford submitted this as a communication; this is her proposed language for it. For things that we have had on here like CA -37 and CA -38; those are brand new amendments because there is nothing currently within the Commission's possession that relates to those topics. MS. KAWAUCHI: For example, if we wanted to move to substitute any of the other Charter amendments, we could just do it through a communication; and move to substitute. MR. HOOKANO: It has to be related to what is being considered by the Commission. MS. KAWAUCHI: That is on the agenda. MR. HOOKANO: Right. MR. SHUMWAY: I do have a question as well. One of the things I wanted to bring up, and I am concerned about, is the number of people who are missing. I don't know if it is too late, or if it is possible to postpone the final vote on this until the next meeting when we might have more people here. Is this the time to do that? 76 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we need to discuss Communication 105 before we take any additional motions? Is that your question? Can we vote to postpone? MR. HOOKANO: A motion to postpone is appropriate at any time. It would require a motion, a second, and a vote. Mr. Shumway moved to postpone further discussion on CA -15 until the next regularly scheduled meeting February 12, 10 10. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? We have a motion to postpone further discussion on CA -15 until the next meeting. MR. KAULUKUKUI: If we entertain that motion and pass that motion right now, then consideration of this Communication 105 is still on the table? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it would all go onto February's agenda. MR. KAULUKUKUI: What I would say at this point is my sense is, and given the opportunity, I would not be supportive of bringing forward the proposed changes from the administration and have that supplant what we had put in there. My preference would have been to dispatch of that, get it out of the way, so when we come back next month it is not even on the table. But that is just my mana`o on it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion to postpone that has been seconded, are we ready to vote? The motion to postpone CA -15 to the next meeting was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: We have been asked to take something out of order. Mr. Kealoha, do you need to go? Mr. Kealoha is excused. RECESS: At 4:46 p.m., the Chair called for a 1- minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 4:47 p.m. 77 CA -31 taken out of order: CA -31: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY Adds a new chapter to Article VI. The proposed charter amendment would create a new department to encompass certain services currently provided at a modest level by the department of research and development, but not delineated CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -31? Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -31 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Ashida, does Mr. Kurohara wish to address this issue? There was a communication from Mr. Kurohara on this. MR. ASHIDA: We are basically here to answer any questions you have on this. We are standing upon the communication that was submitted by Mr. Kurohara which represents the sentiment of the administration in this case. Bottom line, in a nutshell, given the current economic conditions and status, we don't believe it is prudent at this point to be creating new departments; especially when the two areas that are sought to be addressed by this new body, agriculture and energy issues are already being dealt with in what is currently known as the Department of Research and Development. There are also jurisdictional issues. The agriculture, primarily in our government system in our state, comes under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii government, not the County. That is basically it. Like I said, I am here to answer any questions you might have, buy primarily, it is not necessary only because of the additional cost that will be passed on to our taxpayers; and again many of these initiatives are already being undertaken by our Research and Development. In fact, Mr. Brilhante was supposed to be here today to appear before you. He submitted a lot of letters. The reason he is not here is because he is accompanying representatives that we have working in a partnership with the County to develop some Kapuleina lands as an agricultural park for our County in the Hamakua district. Those things, they fly underneath the radar screen; they don't get wide press in the media for whatever reason. But a lot of these activities are happening. So, based on that, the administration's request is that CA -31, not pass out of this body. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kurohara, you had something to add. RANDY KUROHARA (At this time Randy Kurohara, Dept. of Research and Development Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. KUROHARA: I would just like to add that I think the intent of the whole thing was basically to see that more resources are put towards these programs. Right now, with this administration there is and will be, as time goes forward. The other concern originally was just having something within the Charter that binds it in some way. I think that was the discussion at the last meeting. As far as where we are today, in terms of putting more resources, in terms of physical people being able to serve in these programs; we are already doing that right now. In terms of putting more resources towards it; in this upcoming budget, there will be more resources being put towards agriculture and energy as well. So, I think these things are already being addressed. I think agriculture and energy already fall within a department that is functioning well. I think that given the landscape of the economy that we are in right now, this is the right place for it to be right now. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Are there any questions of these gentlemen? Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Certainly, I acknowledge all of the things that you and the current county research and development department are doing, and in particular in terms of trying to increase the resources in the budget that you are currently working on. One of the concerns I have though, is that with all of the good intentions of the administration, the Council can make changes to the budget. What ultimately ends up becoming the budget bill and signed by the Mayor may not reflect some of the growth you would like to see in research and development specifically focused on ag and energy. Is there some way that we can do something to ensure that stays in there through this process? MR. ASHIDA: If I may respond, Mr. Chairman; no, because even if you go that route and say you area creating a new department, the Council could very well just de -fund it. You are in the same position whether you create a new department, or not. As a matter of fact, the likelihood of continued funding is probably increased or enhanced by running it through an existing department with all of the overhead expenses already wrapped up in a single department. MR. KUROHARA: I think there was a point in time when something similar to this was addressed prior, and the estimated salary and wages costs of a separate department could be about half a million dollars. This is not including rent space, office equipment, and things along these lines. Then you talk about programs being funded; that money could very well be going towards programs and things that go to advance both programs. MR. ASHIDA: Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that and responding to Mr. Kaulukukui's question or concern; I know where he is headed with that. There are other ways, and I think more effective ways to ensure that these types of programs or initiatives are funded or go to their fruition. Under our system of our local municipal government, the council's big hammer that they have is that they share control of the budget with the administration. But, basically a large part of their power is derived from their ability to fund or de -fund certain programs, initiatives, departments, or what have you. That being said, the influence can be exerted in that way. I think it all circles back to what I heard Mr. Shumway comment on what Mr. Nahale -a often says about things we don't need to put in the Charter to clutter the 79 Charter to try to fix a problem that can probably be more effectively addressed through other means. Once you vote for the Charter every ten years, that's it, however you vote for a Mayor every four years, you vote for a Council member every two years. That is where the real influence is. I just wanted to add that comment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Just to follow up on that if I can. Then by the same logic, having the department, the call for the department move forward, go through the Charter process, get on the ballot, and let's say perhaps it is passed. Both the Mayor's office and the Council still have the opportunity not to fund it. Is that correct? MR. ASHIDA: It depends what language is in there. MR. KAULUKUKUI: It would be assuming that the language wouldn't be any different than it is in the current amendment, which doesn't have any kind of funding requirement. I didn't see any department in the Charter that had a funding requirement. MR. ASHIDA: Yes, but the argument goes that if it is in the Charter, it is presumed to be mandatory. That issue came up often and I'll give you an example. Where it says that a department head shall appoint a deputy; in one instance, a few years back, one department left that position vacant for a period of time. There was concern raised by members of the community that that violated the Charter; because if it is in the Charter you have got to do it, it is not a choice. I'm not saying you are right, or I'm right, or you are wrong or I'm wrong; I see your point, it is well taken. MR. KUROHARA: I think the sentiment is more about putting more resources towards these programs, not setting up a new department. That was never a big cry from the public; establishing a brand new department. Let's just add more resources. So, that is what we intend to do, and I think that upon approval of the ag plan, I think we can accomplish a lot of what is on there with the existing staff that we have. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I will agree 100% that the most important thing is the functions that have been called for and the services that have been called for. It doesn't have to happen within this sort of structure. My concern, and there is no way that either one of you is going to be able to address it, is because my concern is that your good intentions can be undone through the budget process. That is just something we have got to live with. MS. KAWAUCHI: What I'm hearing with that is that members of the Commission including Mr. Nahale -a, who proposed this as an amendment are concerned about our county's work and emphasis on ag and energy. I'm not sure that creating a new department can help with that. I'm trying to figure out what specifically can be done to enhance or increase the administration's obligation to the economic development in the areas of ag and energy. Or, you might say the County's initiative toward those areas. To me, one of the best ways is to set aside that 2% fund for land because I thought that could :e be a way for the county as a whole to promote ag and energy. Members of the government have testified strongly against setting aside money for those purposes including a submittal by the planning director. So, I am concerned, but I'm not quite sure how to move this agenda forward. Maybe what could be helpful is some testimony proposing ways to do that aside from establishing a department. MR. KUROHARA: I believe we submitted some testimony or a communication for the name change. In speaking with Mr. Nahale -a, out of what his intent was, just to have something within the Charter that says ag is important. To recognize, going forward, between one administration and the next; you cannot say ag is not important in the next administration. So we submitted a suggested re- wording when you consider the name change, it will be inserted in there that the department will focus on sustainable economic development in the areas of agriculture, energy, tourism and other important industries to this island. There is language in there that we submitted that will accomplish both of what his intent was and make sure the county recognizes both agriculture and energy are vital and important. But in terms of just increasing the resources towards the department, that can be done without having to create a new department. MS. KAWAUCHI: I'm not sure if that satisfies the concerns raised. CHR. HAITSUKA: I would like to move this along, because we have Mr. Unger who has to leave and once we lose him, we will not be able to continue our agenda. MS. OSBORNE: I think we should postpone further discussion. I think this is an important enough topic and issue, and there is enough energy around it. It is one of the hot topics that have come up and considering you need to move on, and we really need to think this out thoroughly. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to postpone? Ms. Osborne moved to postpone CA -31 to the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kealoha, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: Before you go, Mr. Unger, we are gong to make some motions to close out our agenda today. We have some unfinished business, and we haven't gone back to CA -12; so what we have currently pending is CA -12, CA -15, which we already postponed, but the ones we haven't addressed yet are, CA -16, CA -17, CA -23, CA -26, CA -29, CA -30, and CA -36 and Communication 136. Do I have a motion to postpone? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to postpone the remaining items to the February 12, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kealoha, and Nahale -a UNFINISHED BUSINESS CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no unfinished business. REPORTS CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no reports. REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no referrals. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Our next regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled for Friday, February 12, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. Is there any discussion as far as scheduling? ADJOURNMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to adjourn? There being no further business, at 5:05 p.m. Mr. Shumway moved to adj ourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, and Nahale -a CHR. HAITSUKA: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission