Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2010-05-21.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION 15th Session Friday, May 21, 2010 County Council Chambers 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon. Today is May 21, 2010, and the time is approximately 1:34 p.m. I call this meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. We are in the chambers of the Hawaii County Council, located at 25 Aupuni Street; with Mr. Unger and myself appearing by videoconference from Hanama Place. I will now call the roll. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chairman (Kona videoconference) Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chairman Ms. Daphne Honma, Commissioner Ms. Casey Jarman, Commissioner Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner (1:45 p.m) Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner (Kona videoconference) Excused: Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner Also Present: Mr. Levi Hookano, Legal Specialist Ms. Arlene Boteilho, Council Committees Ms. Manu Hanano (Waimea videoconference) Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary (Kona videoconference) STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Statements from the Pubic on items on the agenda. We have Ms. Wille here in Kona to testify on Communication 136 and Communication 252. Good afternoon Ms. Wille. MARGARET WILLE (At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILLE: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak; and thanks to all of you for all the work you have done. I just have a few comments on Communication 136, which has to do with combining certain proposed Charter amendments or keeping some that stand alone. I just went through and put down how I would organize them taking into consideration their relative related subject matter and also, to whatever extent possible, minimizing the number of amendments as much as is reasonable. Second, I tried to do it just thinking how I would order them on the ballot. For what it's worth; the first ones that I felt were the most public interest and really view in terms of the relationship of the public to the government and the powers and responsibilities. Starting with combining CA -23 and CA -9, which I believe the ad -hoc committee and Levi recommended as well. Second, would be the respect for the `aina and the land and culture, CA -26. Then third, the land fund would stand alone. Then, the prosecuting attorney's powers would stand alone. The recall provisions would stand alone. Next, CA -17, standing alone. Then combining the department of environmental management, powers and qualifications, CA -10 and CA -11 I believe. Again, I don't know if it was the ad -hoc group or Levi who recommended that. Then, standing alone would be the terms of removal of directors serving under commissions. I would really encourage, to whatever extent, as you get into the more technical and reorganization, if it's possible, to really combine CA -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 36. I don't feel that those are things, that if I, as a member of the public was not really up on this, I would just stop when I got to any one of those. So, I would just put then all together, if you can do that. Maybe you would have to separate out CA -36, I'm not sure. Then, I put the last two, having to do with the charter commission; I sort of feel you guys will really have to educate us when we get down to where we are dealing with the charter commission issues. The first one relates to membership and compensation on boards and commissions, including the charter commission, and the last one, if possible, to combine CA -12 and CA -13. That's it on Communication 136. Maybe there is a much better order, but for what it's worth, those are my suggestions. The second communication is on the educational efforts. I guess you would be forming an ad -hoc committee. I think any of you who volunteer are great. I would encourage Casey Jarman, Susie Osborne and Todd Shumway, all of whom are current educators. 2 For them, discussing educational outreach would be great. But, certainly all of you could be on that committee. The main thing that I would really like to advocate today is just that in terms of your educational outreach that you work with the Community Development Plan (CDP) Action Committees, and the Community Development Steering Committees. Hilo has a similar Hilo Vision Committee. In terms of the General Plan and the County, for the people, it's been what is the most important; what has been going on over the last couple of years and what is going on right now. These are regional community groups. They are encouraged to provide public forums for issues of importance, especially effecting general over - arching themes; which I think the Charter Commission really plays into that. A lot of us really hoped that you would memorialize the CDP Action Committees in that. There was a vote that was a majority of those present, but because there were not enough votes to be majority of the full commission. Therefore, it did not go on the ballot. I know there have been some statements made that the Charter Commission did not really support the CDP's as a result of not voting to get this into the Charter. And that really wasn't the sentiment on this commission, so I think this would be a good way to work with that group. It has a broad range of people on those. I think you would do much better having those people assist you rather than going and setting up your own little hearings that are just relating to this. Then I put in a few other suggestions, just really utilizing your web site and directing newspaper and radio audiences to go there; also using those who write blogs and different ways to get to people; using whatever you can do to direct people to the meetings and direct discussion. Again, I stress thinking about the order that you might want these amendments to be on the ballot and sort of putting them in that format when you are doing the education and how you might think about that organization. And looking at them, not necessarily in the order that you all decided them, but starting with those that would resonate most in terms of public interest and what are the concerns of the public. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. We will note the presence of Ms. Honma and Ms. Osborne in Hilo. Do we have anyone in Waimea to testify? MS. HANANO: No, Mr. Chairman, we have no one here in Waimea to testify. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have anyone in Hilo to testify? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chairman, you have no testifiers in Hilo. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Let's move on to the approval of the minutes for the April 9, 2010 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 9, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Ms Jarman moved to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to Communications. COMMUNICATIONS COMM. 252: FORMATION OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Memo from Edmund W.K. Haitsuka, Chairman, Hawaii County Charter Commission, dated May 11, 2010, proposing the formation of an ad hoc committee to provide suggestions on getting information to the public on the proposed Charter amendments. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to file Communication 252? Ms. Jarman moved to file Comm. 252. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Let me start off the discussion. I drafted this memorandum and I made this suggestion because I think that the next step in our work here on the Commission is to educate the public. I think we can do that a lot more efficiently between meetings if we can form a committee to get together and then give us some ideas and perhaps propose some methods in which we can get out the message of the proposed amendments to the public. That is the reasoning behind the suggestion. MR. UNGER: I will volunteer to be on it. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have Mr. Unger volunteering to be on it. Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: I'll volunteer to be on it if it doesn't matter that I spend most of my time on Oahu. MR. SHUMWAY: I will also volunteer to be on it, although I will be gone for the month of June. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, we have Mr. Shumway, Ms. Jarman and Mr. Unger volunteering. M MS. OSBORNE: I'm also away a lot in the summer, so that's why I'm hesitant to volunteer. But I would be happy to when I'm not away. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chairman, I will too. It looks like we will be doing a lot of our work via email, so that would work for me. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Nahale -a. Is there any further discussion? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, just to give you some information on the formation of an ad -hoc committee. When you name the members, you also have to frame the scope of the ad -hoc committee. You have to state on the record the kind of duties they will be doing, and it has to be as narrow as possible for purposes of the sunshine law. There really doesn't have to be a vote on it. You can just declare that it is formed and declare who is the chairman of the ad -hoc committee and just mention the scope. CHR. HAITSUKA: Who is volunteering to chair the committee? MS. JARMAN: I will chair it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Ms. Jarman. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion as to the scope of the ad -hoc committee's work? MR. FUERTES: Mr. Chair, what was your thinking on the scope? CHR. HAITSUKA: I was thinking the ad -hoc committee would look at different methods and means to get out information to the public such as media, perhaps mailings, look at the costs involved, the content of the communications; that sort of thing. MR. FUERTES: Is there any budget in mind? Do we have a budget for this? MR. HOOKANO: There isn't a specific education budget; it is just wrapped up within the entire budget of the Charter Commission. You will have a budget for next year, but I don't have the exact numbers now, but it should be enough to cover everything the Commission wants to do. MR. SHUMWAY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is the ad -hoc committee primarily a research, brainstorming committee? We wouldn't necessarily be involved in going out and doing the educating. It is strictly just getting information. I would like to clarify that. CHR. HAITSUKA: I believe that was the thought. The committee would come back to the Charter Commission at the next meeting with some ideas of how we can get the message out. MR. HOOKANO: You are correct. The ad -hoc committee would have to formulate a plan, and then come back to the Commission with that plan and the Commission as a whole would have to approve it as a body. Again, this is a three meeting process. The formation meeting, which would be this one; the next time this matter comes back before the Commission, it is a report to the Commission; then at the third meeting is when the Commission will discuss and vote and approve the plan if it desires. It will take at least three meetings including this one for the education plan to be approved. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. The other thing I wanted to add is that perhaps the committee could give us an idea on the proposed timeline on some of the things that we want to get out. Maybe sending our advertisements, mailings, or whatever else we are going to do. MS. KAWAUCHI: Would the committee also be coming up with a proposal for how the language for each of the proposals is going to be worded on the ballot? CHR. HAITSUKA: I don't think that is in the scope of this particular committee. I don't know if that is something that we were going to do as far as the Commission; or if that is something that our legal counsel was going to do. Mr. Hookano, do you have any thoughts? MR. HOOKANO: I could prepare some language for the Commission to review. According to the State law, it is the Commission that comes up with the language, so if I do come forward with something, then I would submit it to the Commission for your approval. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Hookano, do we have sufficient definition as to the scope of the ad -hoc committee? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, at this time I think it would be beneficial for you to re -state the members, and then re -state the scope, so that it is clear at this point. CHR. HAITSUKA: The members of the ad -hoc committee would be Ms. Jarman as the chair; and the members would be Mr. Unger, Mr. Shumway, Ms. Osborne and Mr. Nahale -a. The scope of the ad -hoc committee would be to investigate the methods and means by which the Charter Commission can educate the public regarding the proposed amendments by coming up with timelines for getting the message out, exploring the costs of the various methods and means that we may use. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, are you a member of this ad -hoc committee? CHR. HAITSUKA: No, I am not. Is there any further discussion? Are we ready to vote on the initial motion, which was to file Communication 252? R The motion to file Comm. 252 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. NEW BUSINESS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is New Business; we don't have any new business, so let's move on. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next, for Unfinished Business, we have Communication 136. COMM. 136: CONSOLIDATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS Memo from commission attorney, Levi Hookano, dated January 12, 2010, transmitting a Report on Combining Proposed Amendments which recommends consolidating (1) CA- 2, CA -3, and CA -36; (2) CA -9, CA -23, and CA -30, (3) CA -12 and CA -13 Postponed: February 12, 2010 and; COMM. 136.1: Memo from commission secretary, Karen Eoff, dated February 2, 2010 regarding Proposed Charter Amendments that passed 2nd reading at the January 21, 2010 meeting that may be discussed as part of Comm. 136. CA -1: Renames the manager of the department of water supply to "manager -chief engineer;" CA -2: Moves Data Systems to Article VI and changes the name to Department of Information Technology; CA-3: Moves Fire Department to Article VII; CA -4: Civil Service Amendment; CA -5: Merit Appeals Board Staggered Terms; CA -6: Removal of Directors Serving Under Commissions; CA -10: Expands the Powers, Duties, Functions of Department of Environmental Management; CA -11: Requirements of the Director of Department of Environmental Management; and CA -13: Mandatory Charter Review. and; COMM. 136.2: Memo from Commission Secretary, Karen Eoff, dated March 2, 2010 regarding Proposed Charter Amendments that passed 2nd reading at the February 12, 2010 meeting that may be discussed as part of Comm. 136. CA -7 (Draft 2): Recall Procedure; CA -9 (Draft 2): Special Meeting Notice Requirements; CA-23: Electronic Notice with Newspaper Publications; CA -26 (Draft 2): Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources; CA -29: Prosecuting Attorney Powers; and CA -36 (Draft 2): "Housekeeping" Amendments. 7 and; COMM. 136.3: Memo from commission secretary, Karen Eoff, dated March 31, 2010 summarizing proposed charter amendments that passed 2nd reading and may be discussed as part of Comm. 136. Proposed amendments include CA -1: Department of Water Supply; CA -2: Data Systems; CA -3: Fire Department; CA -4: Civil Service Laws; CA -5: Merit Appeals Board; CA -6: Removal of Directors Serving Under Commissions; CA -7 (Draft 3): Recall Procedures; CA -9 (Draft 2): Special Meeting Notice Requirement; CA -10: Department of Environmental Management, Powers, Duties, and Functions; CA -11: Department of Environmental Management, Requirements of Director; CA -12 (Draft 3): Initiation of Amendments or Revisions; CA -13: Mandatory Charter Review; CA -15 (Draft 3): The Land Fund; CA -17 (Draft 2): Reapportionment to Redistricting; CA -24: Electronic Notice with Newspaper Publications; CA -26: Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources; CA -29: Prosecuting Attorney Powers; CA -36: "Housekeeping" Amendments; CA -38: (Draft 2): Voluntary Status of Board and Commission Members. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, I'm not sure what type of motion should be made at this time. MR. HOOKANO: Currently, it would be a motion to file Communication 136 and all related communications. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion? Mr. Nahale -a moved to file Comm. 136 and all related communications. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? I just wanted to note that since Communication 136 came out, not all of the amendments in that particular communication passed; in particular, CA -30 didn't make it, and also CA -31. Subsequent to that memorandum, a few of the other proposed amendments did pass. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would like to speak against consolidating any of the amendments. I feel like we passed them separately, and so they should be voted on separately. If we had wanted to combine them, we should have done it at the time. So, I would be opposed to it. However, I think when we decide on what order to put them on the ballot, we can put "like" items together on the ballot, and "unlike" items together. When we reorganize them and put them in the correct part of the Charter, we could put them all together. That could be part of our educational outreach. But, I don't think we should consolidate things, because that's not how we voted on them. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Jarman. Is there any further discussion? MS. KAWAUCHI: I would agree with that comment. I would also add that I think that if we did consolidate them, it would add extra work as well. People would have to think about how best to word things, and it could be confusing; particularly since we didn't vote to consolidate them, as Ms. Jarman has said. Anyways, I support that comment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Kawauchi. Is there any other discussion? CHR. HAITSUKA: I am generally in favor consolidating; and I think I am in favor of consolidating similar to the proposal by Margaret Wille, with the exception of #9. I don't know if we can consolidate those six proposed amendments in her item #9. I would leave that to Mr. Hookano, because I thought that we could not consolidate substantive changes with non - substantive changes. I thought there was some kind of consideration regarding those. Mr. Hookano, do you have any comments on Ms. Wille's testimony; item #9? MR. HOOKANO: I don't have that in front of me right now. Give me a second to take a look at that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. I'll just state that I am in favor of consolidating because we have 19 proposed amendments. I think that when the voters get to the booth and see 19 separate amendments, not to mention the other choices that they have to make, it's going to take some time to go through all of that, and I don't know if the voters will want to see all of these different separate amendments and have to make all these decisions separately. I think it would be more effective that if some these that share the same type of content be grouped together. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, you were looking at item #9 on Ms. Wille's testimony; is that correct? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, that is correct. MR. HOOKANO: I think, looking at that, that some of them could be combined. But, I would think that CA -1, CA -2 and CA -5 cannot be included in that list because they change titles, they change the names of the departments and the terms of the merit appeals board. Those changes are more substantive. Moving the fire department; I think is closer to a "housekeeping" item, since it is not changing the language of the fire department; and the civil service laws are coming up to compliance with state law. But, to the extent that I think those are more closely related than that whole list together. CHR. HAITSUKA: For clarification, are you saying CA -2 and CA -4? MR. HOOKANO: CA -1, CA -2 and CA -5 seem to make more substantive changes than the rest, just off the top of my head, whereas CA -3, CA -4 and CA -36 could all be viewed as "housekeeping" matters. But, again, they do make changes to the Charter that are kind 9 of substantive in that they move things around, whereas CA -36 is just wording and grammar. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is it your opinion that we can combine CA -3, CA -4 and CA -36? MR. HOOKANO: I think that would be the more likely combination, rather than that entire list. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? MR. SHUMWAY: Yes, I tend to agree with you about this. I think we would be doing the voters a service by consolidating a few of them that are very similar. I also think that Ms. Wille did a pretty good job of combining them. I still have a question though. If we are talking about consolidation, I don't know exactly what that means. Does that mean re- writing, or does than mean just combining two within one amendment? Can you help me with that, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: The way I view the consolidation is there is no re- writing to be done. All the language that was approved, that is exactly how it would be; it is just that the subject matter would come under one ballot question. I wouldn't see it as re- writing anything or changing any language at all. MS. HONMA: Just to clarify, for me; so, it's kind of putting what Casey said, where you would be combining "like" items, but you are not voting for each one separately. You would be voting for them in a bulk. Is that what that is? MR. HOOKANO: That is correct, Ms. Honma. I think the clearest example from the list that we have is the two that relate to the department of environmental management; the powers, duties and functions and the powers of the director. I think that would be the clearest example of two that are under the same general heading. That is just as an example. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: They may be under the same general heading, but they are really two entirely different things. One expands the powers, duties and functions of the department of environmental management, and the other one has to do with whether or not the director of the department of environmental management should have more experience than is required in the current Charter. I could see someone agreeing on one and disagreeing on the other. If you combine them into one, then they cannot; you would have to agree to both. That is why I am opposed to this. I think these came out separately with separate discussions; and if you combine these two, I might decide that I really like one and I don't like the other; and all of a sudden I am forced to vote one way, and I'm not happy. 10 CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Levi, can you remind me. Do we need 50% plus one affirmative vote to pass something? Or, do we need 50% of the votes cast, to pass something? MR. HOOKANO: Are you inquiring about during the election; during the General Election? It would be the majority of the votes cast on that question. So, in theory, if only one person voted on a ballot question for the Charter amendment; and that person voted "aye" that Charter amendment would be approved. So, it's only of the votes cast on that question. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I also think that if we do our j ob well in terms of educating the public, they will understand what is going on. The elections office also puts out a brochure on all of the Charter amendments and things that we have to vote on, so that will be out as well; and will actually be out at each voting site. If you look at California, they often have hundreds of initiatives and things that they have to vote on and it seems like California voters are able to make educated decisions about what they are doing; and this is far fewer. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm not sure that California is a good example. MS. JARMAN: Whether or not we agree with how they are voting, they all seem to still be able to manage to do it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Does anyone else have any discussion or comments? Mr. Hookano, procedurally, how would we handle this particular issue, outside of filing the communications? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, if you are referring to how to actually do the consolidations, if one is desired, then a member would have to make a motion to consolidate particular amendments. If that motion isn't made, then the only other option is to file the communication and this matter is over. CHR. HAITSUKA: If that motion is going to be made, is it made before we file the communication, or after? MR. HOOKANO: Before filing the communication. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, does anyone want to make a motion regarding any possible consolidation? 11 Mr. Unger moved to consolidate CA -23 and CA -9. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Honma, Jarman and Kawauchi. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have any other motions to consolidate any of the proposed amendments? Mr. Shumway moved to consolidate CA -36, CA -3 and CA -4. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I don't quite understand why -- -Isn't CA -2 the same as CA -3? I'm not going to vote for combining but - -- MR. SHUMWAY: I think Mr. Hookano said that CA -2 was separate, or should be separate, and I was trying to follow his guidelines. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you have any comment? MR. HOOKANO: I'm sorry, I missed that discussion. MR. SHUMWAY: I'll repeat that. The question is on CA -2; I thought you said that CA -2 should stand alone. Is that correct? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, that's correct. My opinion was that CA -2 should stand alone because besides moving data systems, it also re -names data systems to the department of information technology. So, because of that name change, in my opinion, it stands alone. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I'm concerned about the wording of the motions that we are making and passing on this issue. I think that we should be on the record when making the motion, and be clear as to what we mean by "consolidation." If anybody has a question on what consolidation is going to mean, it's on the record. Earlier we just discussed is as a discussion of the communication, but not as the motion. My thought is that when 12 making a motion to consolidate, we should be clear as to what we mean when we are doing it; so there is no question as to what we are passing by consolidating each of the amendments together. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I agree; and I think the exact language of what the now, "new" Charter amendment is going to look like, or read like. We are actually drafting a new Charter amendment that wasn't passed before. I hope everybody understands that's what we are doing. We are passing, on essentially first reading, a new Charter amendment. In my opinion, in a sense, we would need to do a second reading; but, I know our attorney feels differently. But, I still agree, we should have that language so everybody knows. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you have any comments? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I agree on the issue of clarity on the motion. Now that it was mentioned, when CA -9 and CA -23 was combined, I think that motion should state why those two are being combined and what the overall theme of those two are, and why they are being combined should be stated. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I think we should be very clear. In fact, we may even want to be so clear as to read the entire language that we want to appear as. I'm kind of concerned about what we are doing as being raised at this juncture, and if people are going to have problems; if members of the public, or anybody is going to have a problem with the consolidation in terms of are these now going to be substantive changes. I'm just raising it; I think there is some question about that. MR. NAHALE -A: Point of parliamentary procedure, Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: My question is, if I would like to reconsider my earlier vote on the consolidation, when is it appropriate for me to move to reconsider? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman, our parliamentarian. MS. JARMAN: After we take up this motion, then, since you were on the prevailing side, you can make a motion to reconsider the former motion. Then, that would have to be seconded and voted on. If that passes, then the motion is back on the floor again. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, on the current proposal, I'm going to vote, "no." I think because we only need one affirmative vote for a Charter proposal to pass, I think those voters who want to vote can go through all the proposals and vote the way they wish. I 13 actually think consolidating is a service to the community, but I worry that - - -I think there is more danger for us to get it wrong than to get it right, that we are not going to articulate very well why they are being consolidated; and that is a bigger fear to me. By leaving them separate, the only cost to me is the voter has to go through every proposal, and to me that's the price of a democracy. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. My conception of this consolidation is that we are just grouping already passed amendments into one section; that there isn't additional language, there isn't any change. So, I understand and am somewhat swayed by Ms. Jarman's concern about people maybe having different ideas. But, I think the ones that have been suggested - -and these are the only ones that I would personally approve of - -are all so similar that I am not that concerned about people having different opinions. But, the questions about are we making substantive changes, I thought, based upon our earlier discussion, that is not what is happening. So, I need to be really clear. If that is what is happening, then I would also probably reconsider my votes. MR. NAHALE -A: If I could speak to that. I think I'm right where Mr. Shumway was. guess, to me, leaving each proposal on its own, is as clear as we can be. I think that consolidating them will require some work to articulate why we are consolidating these two or these three and not that one. I think it just brings up confusion in my mind. Keeping them separate, it's crystal clear. That's my current reasoning. CHR. HAITSUKA: I had the same understanding as Mr. Shumway; that we were combining particular proposed amendments just for balloting purposes. The language of the proposed amendments wouldn't change. Mr. Hookano, is that a correct understanding as to what would happen if we combined these proposed amendments? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, Mr. Chair, they would just appear under one ballot question. The language of consolidated CA's would appear under one ballot question. MR. NAHALE -A: But in either case, every single proposal is going to be listed exactly the same way, so we are really not going to lessen the pages of proposals; we just lessen the amount of times folks would have to vote "yes" or "no." But, there is no change in wording at all; they would have to read through every single proposal, but they can vote for this chunk or these three if they so choose. I guess I don't see how much benefit that is to a voter in the voting booth, having to vote only 13 times rather than 19 times. MS. KAWAUCHI: Following Mr. Nahale -a's comments, there is risk of confusion if you group them, even if you provide education and tell them all of these proposals are to be viewed separately. The fact is we went ahead and grouped them, so people are going to think they are all related. I think there is risk of confusion to the voter, although I know the intention behind doing the combinations or consolidations was to save the voter from the arduous task of reading 19 different proposals. But, I think Mr. Nahale -a's point is very well taken, that they are going to be reading them anyway. On top of that, we may be inadvertently giving them the impression that some of these are grouped together and may be all considered as one, as opposed to separate. I'm still not clear on exactly 14 how these proposals are going to look, so even if it's a matter of us consolidating, I have a fear of not being really clear on how all of this is going to look together, and I don't know what I'm necessarily voting on at this point. I'm concerned about voting in favor of consolidating for those reasons. MR. NAHALE -A: I would be willing to do this work in the education effort. So, to group things together and say, "The Commission believes these are all housekeeping measures and encourages you to vote, `yes'." And then, my understanding is that on the ballot we can group things together that way, correct? Even though we wouldn't make them one vote, we could still number them in that order, correct? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Nahale -a, are you asking about the order of the questions on the ballot? MR. NAHALE -A: The first point is, I think in the education effort, we could say, "We believe that these measures are just housekeeping, and we encourage you to vote `yes' because they give us a cleaner, better, more accurate Charter." We would have to have that debate here, and I think that's a good place to have it. But, they can all be individual items. My question is; on the ballot do we get to determine the order, and how they are grouped? Is that correct? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, I think Ms. Jarman is nodding her head. She was the County Clerk, so I think she has experience in this area. MR. NAHALE -A: So we could choose, for example, to say, the first five items on the ballot we believe are housekeeping measures; if we agree, for argument sake. Then, we could educate from there. So in the voter's minds, we can accomplish the same thing. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I agree with all that has been said. Also, if you look at housekeeping amendments, you would have something about civil service laws and something about fire department altogether, and I think people would wonder how they are related to each other. Even under housekeeping amendments, although we all agree that the proper Hawaiian diacriticals are important and should be in the Charter, there actually are people who think Hawaiian diacritical marks don't belong in anything written in the government. So if we combine that with the other two, then people might want to vote against that. Whether I agree with that position or not, I know there are people that have that position. That's why I worry about combining things; because we are using our value judgment, as the people who have been working on this for months and months now, but our value judgments may not be the same as the value judgments of the voters. We might not be able to even think of other things that the voters may have some reason beyond what we are thinking of. So, I still want to vote against any consolidation, even if it seems to make sense to us. Thank you. MR. SHIJMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that too. I think we have been making value judgments all along; that is partially why we are here. I think our job is to try to make it sensible to the voters. I know from personal experience, going in there 15 and seeing 19 things, and as I read through them seeing some that are very similar. However, I am also swayed by what Ms. Jarman is saying. And as long as I can be assured that we will have some say in organizing the order, and having some say in how it appears, I would be willing to - -in fact I will -- withdraw my motion to do that additional consolidation. Mr. Shumway withdrew his motion to consolidate CA -36, CA -3 and CA -4. MS. JARMAN: Perhaps we could take a brief recess and go check with Pat Nakamoto, who is right across the hallway. She is the head of the elections office and we can make sure that my memory of how ballot questions are arranged, and that we can actually put them in the order that we want to. I don't think it has to be the order in which we passed them; but I think it would make me feel comfortable, since I'm the one that nodded my head "yes" to just confirm it with her. RECESS: At 2:25 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 2:35 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: We are back in session. Ms. Jarman, did you follow up with the County Clerk's Election Officer? MS. JARMAN: I tried, but unfortunately, they are all over in Honolulu helping with the Special Election, and nobody is answering their cell phone. But, there certainly is nothing in the Charter that would demand that we do it, and I know there is nothing in the election law that says we have to do it in the order in which we passed them. I would say that I am pretty comfortable with the fact that we can put them in the order that we would like to; that we think would make the most sense for the electorate. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. So, the last motion was withdrawn by Mr. Shumway, and I forgot what motion we were on now. I think Mr. Nahale -a wanted to make a motion to reconsider the last motion. MR. HOOKANO: For a reconsideration vote, the second does not have to be a member who voted on the prevailing side, only the maker of the motion has to be on the prevailing side. Mr. Nahale -a moved to reconsider the vote on the motion to consolidate CA -23 and CA -9. Seconded by Ms. Jarman. CHR. HAITSUKA: Just for clarification purposes, the motion is to reconsider the vote on the motion to combine CA -23 and CA -9 for balloting purposes. 16 MR. NAHALE -A: I would like to say why I am reconsidering my vote. I do think these can be consolidated, but if we do these then we are going to talk about others, I think it is easier to communicate to the public that we left them alone on purpose so that they could consider each one on their own; and we can still try to group them in our education efforts. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: At this point, since it appears that is the direction we are going, to not combine any of these amendments, it doesn't make much sense to just take two and combine those. So, at this point, I am in agreement to rescind that as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? MR. FUERTES: Are we voting on the reconsideration or are we voting on Mr. Unger's? CHR. HAITSUKA: We have Mr. Nahale -a's motion to reconsider the vote on combining CA -23 and CA -9. The motion to reconsider the vote on combining CA -23 and CA -9 was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway and Unger. Noes: Commissioners Osborne and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, now you are on the motion to combine CA -23 and CA -9, because the motion to reconsider brings that motion back in its original form. CHR. HAITSUKA: Back to the motion to combine CA -23 and CA -9 for balloting purposes, is there any further discussion? The motion to combine CA -23 and CA -9 for balloting purposes failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Osborne, Shumway, and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a and Unger. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. 17 CHR. HAITSUKA: Back to our original motion to file Communication 136 and all the related communications, any further discussion? The motion to file Comm. 136 and all related communications was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. REPORTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda are Reports, and we don't have any. REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is Referrals for Executive Session, and we don't have any referrals. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have Announcements, and our next regular meeting scheduled for Friday, June 11, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, for your information, June 11, 2010 is King Kamehameha day, and I believe the office is closed. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Are there any suggestions for alternate days from anybody? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, if you are hoping for a report from our ad -hoc committee, then later is better than earlier. MR. NAHALE -A: How about the 18tn9 CHR. HAITSUKA: Friday, June 18,2010? W., MR. UNGER: I'll be out of town. MR. SHUMWAY: I'll be gone too. MS. HONMA: I'll be gone too. MS. OSBORNE: I'll also be gone. CHR. HAITSUKA: That's four people who will not be available. Let's see what else? MS. JARMAN: June 25, 2010 would be the following Friday. CHR. HAITSUKA: What is everybody's availability for June 25, 2010? MR. UNGER: I'll be here. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'll be here. MR. SHUMWAY: I will not be here MS. OSBORNE: I will not be here. MR. FUERTES: I'll be here, but I'll be in Kona. MS. JARMAN: I'll be here, MR. NAHALE -A: I'll be here. MS. HONMA: I'm not sure; it depends on a family situation. I cannot give a definite yes or no yet. MS. KAWAUCHI: I should be here on the 25tH MR. UNGER: We may have Mr. Kaulukukui and Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's set it for June 25, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. Just a reminder for those of you that haven't gotten in your financial disclosure statements, like me, we need to get that in to our secretary. MR. FUERTES: Mr. Chair, the 25th, will Kona be open also? Can I be in Kona office? CHR. HAITSUKA: Our secretary said it will be. I'll probably be here too. So, the next meeting is on Friday, June 25, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. 19 ADJOURNMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Next on our agenda is adjournment. There being no further business, at 2:45 p.m. Mr. Unger moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Honma and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary 20 Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission 21