Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2009-09-19 PH-Waimea.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Public Hearing Saturday, September 19, 2009 Waimea Elementary School Cafeteria 67 -1225 Mamalahoa Highway Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good Morning. Today is September 19, 2009, and we are at the Waimea Elementary School Cafeteria in Kamuela for a public hearing of the Hawaii County Charter Commission. The time is approximately 9:07 a.m. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chair (9:10 a.m) Ms. Daphne Honma, Commissioner Ms. Casey Jarman, Commissioner Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner (9:15 a.m) Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Absent: Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner Also Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary Ms. Glynis Yamada, Council Services Supervisor Mr. Drake Okinishi, Council Aide to Council Chairman CHR. HAITSUKA: First to testify, we have Ms. Margaret Wille. Good morning, Ms. Wille. MARGARET WILLE (At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILLE: You are in my backyard, so I had to come over. Margaret Wille, I'm from Waimea. I'm just going to comment on a number of items. First, I just wanted to mention that you all have spoken about doing some kind of educational program for the community to sort of understand what is going on. I'm not sure what you are doing, or what you will be doing, but I'm just encouraging that. Most people, like when you say Charter, they don't have any idea what Charter means. It's not in the vocabulary of maybe law, or ordinance, or statute. Also, in terms of the notice that you sent out with those nine items that are - -I think this is what it was - -the Charter Amendments one through nine. I know that there are going to be quite a lot more, but if you sort of look through these, most people wouldn't see - -they don't really relate to them or understand- -what is going on with them. If there were something - - -A lot of these first ones are just changing the names or moving them, but perhaps - -I don't know if it's possible - -where there are some of the more complex ones, to be able to put what the purpose is, or something to explain them, so if you look at it, you know what it is, or what sort of questions are coming up. I wanted to really sort of go over - -I went through one of your meetings and comments, and give some feedback - -on some of the things that I didn't raise, but that have been brought up. This is just going down a couple, then I'm going to go to your April meeting that I went through this morning and some of my comments on those different items. One was - -I think you had an ad -hoc committee - -about the memorandum of understanding in the Charter, and sort of how Hawaiian Homelands plays in, and what that interrelationship is to the County. I read whatever that was you had in your minutes quite a while ago, but I know there was originally some testimony and some concern on that. It happened that last night I was reading through the minutes of - - -I think it was a Planning Commission decision and the whole issue, or key issue, was how the memorandum of understanding, which is sort of the written theory of how the County and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands interfaces, and who has what jurisdiction over who and what circumstances. It was clear that the people that were coming before the board just sort of got lost in that issue. I mention that - -and I'm probably going to write something up myself- -but I notice that you sort of left it to others to look at. Just so you know, my experience is all those others keep leaving it up to the others. If there were something to at least maybe recognize that memorandum of understanding, or do something - - -I would see if there was something you could do that would help people resolve that issue of what is the interrelationship to the County. Maybe some of these things, you have already settled. This is going through the minutes from April. On the jurisdictional limits of the County and the offshore waters, I'm not sure where you got to, but I thought that was a really good issue. I would hope that if you haven't pursued that further, that you do. I see it with a lot of these offshore fish farms coming up, or if there was a ferry or more and more people sort of living off in their boats. In particular, with respect to economic activity, major, massive industries - -in terms of off the Kohala 2 coast, what's left of prime AA water, or whatever category it is for high quality - -are moving in there. I'm not really opposed to it; there really is just no supervision, or who on the County looks out for that. So, if there were a way to say something --I don't know what the distance is to Maui, but half the distance to Maui-­just say that this is included within the jurisdiction of Hawaii unless limited by State statute or constitution, so you allow if they're taking it out. A lot of community meetings going on in Kawaihae are all about the major development that is happening right at Kawaihae harbor and off north Kohala with various different fishing - -- They're farming out there, there are fish farms off our coast that somehow seems like there should be some accountability or jurisdiction by the County. On the diacritical marks, and whether that should be an amendment, I think it was Ashida that said that grammar, or spelling didn't need to be an amendment, and I agree with that. There was a question as to reviser of ordinances, and what that meant, and I don't know what that means, so I don't whether you have answered that question. One of the bigger issues was really what is the role of resolutions. This was around page 25 to 27, all of this, I just took one of your meetings; this is April. There were comments from the administration and one comment was maybe we shouldn't have resolutions on one side, or, we should just say resolutions are just conveying information about an existing ordinance. I think that generally, limit it that its prime function is to be public policy through legislation. I disagree with restricting it further. I think that it gets too black and white, law, and here is the ordinance, versus not speaking. Those resolutions allow that middle area for people to speak. For example, there were two hearings this session that really had to do with State legislation that was important. They were probably two of the most highly attended County Council meetings. One was, well anyways, what comes to mind is the GMO, or preemption issue and maybe the fair election issue. I'm not sure what they all were. But these were all people - -where we here can't just drive to Honolulu - -and it gave sort of a forum for people to speak and feel that they were heard. That was probably the furthest, where say where you didn't even have something going on in this County, but certainly a lot of people felt it was important and it provided a forum. I also think it gives- -where there is a resolution, therefore it's not required, but one of the ways where there is a resolution about something -- asking even the administration or encouraging something - -is that then they are more accountable, and if they don't go along with it, then they state their reason why they don't, rather than it being something that's ignored. So, I just encourage you not to limit further that area, resolutions. If you were to cut it out, you would have far more dissention, and people doing things that are more - - -I'm going to use the word violent, but I don't' mean that in a - - -I mean where they don't know what to do with their emotion, and don't know how to express it. This provides a vehicle for sentiments that may not be in the majority, but at least they feel that they've been heard. Another issue was whether there should be separate attorneys for the Council and the Administration. I know that Corporation Counsel Ashida said he was opposed to that. I feel that there really should be something, say more like Maui does. They have a Maui Office of Council Services, and they do have a separate attorney that is not sitting there getting everything okayed by the one that is working for the administrative branch. It's still that corporation counsel entity would handle any litigation, and that seems to be the difference. 3 But who is giving advice? What happens right now is that Ashida, who is part of Mayor Kenoi's cabinet, and clearly identifies with the executive branch, and if there is any conflict, he stands by the executive branch. I think what happens is then you don't have those issues, those disagreements worked out at that level where they should be. Instead, things end up going to court, that shouldn't go to court; such as with the impact fees, where Judge Ibarra said, is your impact fee ordinance in line with the State statute. Well, it clearly is not, and what Chris Yuen said is well, if it gets to litigation, then we'll deal with it. Corporation Counsel's office basically said, we are going with the executive branch, which was in litigation over that point. Tome, it just set the County up for risk. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but there were a number of cases that if you had more discussion on the county level, we wouldn't have ended up in court in the Hokulia case, in the Leslie case. As I see it, you would have had those discussions on this level, rather than sort of all the people that are being sort of yes - people to whatever the administration's position is. I encourage you to look at how to have some separation. I did write something up on that. Certainly right now, there is a great deal of distrust with the corporation counsel, and the whole county legal system because of what's going on with the county council. As I went through, a lot of what you all wrote in the minutes, if it weren't for all of that going on, I would agree with more, such as the four year term limits. But, right now Clerk Goodenow and Ashida are right in the middle of what's going on. Yoshimoto, Ashida and Goodenow are like three of them right together. Then you have the council majority, and the minority is just being left out. But, I'm not looking at it from the position of those council people; I'm looking at it from the position of the public. When we sit there and watch this going on and see -- televised -- Goodenow is saying one thing here, but then he said another thing the day before, and Ashida is saying this, and it's all --- Anyways, I think it's important to be aware that right now, there is more distrust, and so where a conflict of interest may not in the past have seemed so important, it certainly is important right now. On the Legislative Research assistants; they are all appointed positions, and again, this makes everything so political. It seemed like you were leaning in the direction of making those positions not appointed, but whether it's civil service, or whatever you call it. So that they- - number one - -are not just looking at themselves as political beings that have to--- Basically the way it goes, is they have to do whatever Goodenow says, and Goodenow says whatever Ashida and Yoshimoto say. So, even if they come up and write something- -here is the analysis - -they can't give it to the councilperson if it disagrees with the position of someone who is right in the Mayor's cabinet. And, let me just say, I like our Mayor, this is nothing personal, I'm just trying to look at it as a matter of trust and accountability to the public. If you do any transitions, I think it's important to say how you are dealing with people who are in positions right now, whether that has to do with changing the number of years for council, or a board members, or council members versus how you deal with the legislative research branch. If you are aware, there was a lawsuit about Arakaki, and he transitioned from four year terms to two years terms. Everyone protested, you don't get another two year term. They went to court about it, but by the time they got a decision saying he couldn't do that, he had already served out those additional two years. Staggered terms, I think there was a general sense that didn't work, and I agreed with that. I hope you don't mind if I just sort 12 of go through these points and give you feedback on all of it. I'll run down them as fast as I can. Having nine members at- large, I think it would just be so easy to get weighted to the more urban areas. At least now, we have moved to where it's by district, and probably that works out the best. Under Legislative Research Branch there are also points about posting electronic notice. I noticed that on your list you had on number nine, about special meetings, and putting those on to the web site. Let me see, I actually wrote that out. I would like it to say for all meetings, you just said for special meetings. It should be for all meetings and I would like it to say including on the county calendar. There is the calendar that has each of the meetings that are coming up. That's what most people look to that are on the internet. Since you don't meet again for another ten years, there is certainly the direction it its going. Not everybody has a newspaper. I wrote the wording down here someplace. The other point would be, what a number of the boards are doing is, if you go to that calendar, the Hawaii County events calendar, it lists all the different boards. It doesn't list all; it doesn't include the Planning Commission, which I think is very wrong. Some of them, then you can click to where their agenda is. Again looking at it in terms of notice to people, so they can participate, it would be nice to say including putting it on that calendar, and if available linking it to the board's agenda for its upcoming meeting. A number of them do that, even like the Hilo Vision 2025, the County Council does it. If you don't do it, for example to get to the Planning Commission, to find out what the Planning Commission is doing - -maybe someone catches it in the newspaper, but to do it on the internet - -you have to go to the County page, find the listing for the Planning Department, and then in sort of an unsorted list, find where it mentions the Planning Commission actions and agenda, and then you click on that. It would be nice to sort of have a set standard. I think this is even more important right now, given what happened recently with the County Council reorganization. In that case - -which was obviously a very important issue to people - -on Wednesday night before a holiday, that agenda was stamped at 11:15 p.m. by Chairman Yoshimoto, and then they filed it in the Clerk's office, and then they posted it at the Ben Franklin Building, which was then locked until Friday. So that whereas it says six days public notice, the Clerk Goodenow put it on his own site, but he had never done that before, it was always on the Calendar and on the Council site. So, if you did have sort of a standard in terms of the internet, which is what people are using, however you do it, then everyone will get into that that is the routine way to find out what is going on. The public is supposed to have notice six days in advance. Another point that came up was the affirmative vote of the majority of the entire membership and what that meant. I thought that was sort of a good point, and the only thing I was looking for was if there was another way to add more clarity, and Ms. Jarman got into that. Where it says there has to be a majority vote for the council to take action, if you have a four /four vote to kill something, that's not an affirmative vote for that council action. I wondered, aren't votes all supposed to all be stated in the affirmative. If there could be a little more clarity there so it's not a - - -I'm just into preventing litigation, and prevent issues and get clarity wherever we can. Whatever you decide, it's just looking at it in terms of clarity and letting people know. 5 On the issue of term limits, just from a theoretical standpoint, I totally agree with having four years. But, I don't think that will pass. I think it was after Arakaki was in for twelve years, and people just felt there was such a strong -hold on county government by having one person in that way, and the sense that if there was somebody that was wrong, it would take four years to get them out. I just think you are up against a lot of opposition. What you might do, even if you really want four years, is go to three years now and maybe in the future go to four. I completely agree that it is less efficient, and that it's expensive to have elections and how could we do it otherwise. You're certainly going to have to do a lot of educating, I think, to do four years. Just asking people, it's like, no, we just finally got away from that. Keep in mind there is still a lot of distrust that everything is done behind closed doors here and that we really want to have government as open as possible, even if it costs more. I think three years might work, and then have a maximum of three, three year terms. I just warn you, I don't think the four years will pass. Again, it is an issue of what's more efficient, and what delivers better services; but there is a trust issue involved here. I don't think that-- - Considering the people who were here when this issue came up before, there's just too much fear about what's going to happen if you went to four years. Again, I think it's important to say -- whatever you do - -this doesn't give those in office a new set of terms. It would go into effect with whatever new election. I'm just about done here. One thing that Prosecutor Kimura proposed --I think this was at the last session and he wasn't there, and I think you held it over to your next meeting- -was he wanted to remove the sentence that said -- -Right now, Corporation Counsel can represent anyone on any board, for any matter relating in any way to their job, except if they are impeached. He wanted to remove that last sentence that says, except if they're impeached. I would like to at least say, if they're impeached for a willful violation, at least in terms of the Sunshine Law, I don't' think that's appropriate. He gave some examples in what he submitted that where someone sort of inadvertently funds are given to them that are really then going to that board, going to some other entity, and it's all this sort of very inadvertent stuff. What I just think is if you are going to look at it, there has to be aline. If there is somebody sort of willfully - - -To be impeached, maybe there are other reasons, but usually if they are impeached it's because they have committed a crime or a willful violation. You sort out where your standard is, or where that break point is. I think that is what the prohibition part is supposed to be about. If someone willfully does something wrong, that he doesn't have the right to demand that our county money be spent to defend him. I think, unless I may be misunderstanding it, I think right now - -with all of these conflict of interest issues coming up in West Hawaii Today - -this issue is even more important because it seems like, to the public, that the corporation counsel and the prosecuting attorney are all trying to protect these folks that may have violated the Sunshine Law, and maybe willfully. Anyway, thank you very much. I didn't go through all of what I testified to. I think at some point, maybe at your next months meeting, I'm going to go over some of those, and sort of work through some of the questions that came up. I will say one thing on tightening up the ethical standards. I think the current provision that is used is sort of like the least protective, the lowest of the statutes around the country, if you looked at the different ones. If you looked at what is their's, per self interest, is it just something that just affects them and their immediate family, and look at that ours is on the more limited side. I'm just sort of trying to 0 raise some of the ethical standards, and create more sense of trust here in the County. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Next we have Mr. Patrick Sullivan. Good morning, Mr. Sullivan. PATRICK SULLIVAN (At this time Patrick Sullivan came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for taking your time on a Saturday morning. I'm going to be short, and therefore sweet, because I know we have a parade to get to. I'm just recently getting interested in all that is going on behind the scenes. I've been here for about seven years now, and I was a little bit shocked by the lack of transparency in the County Council things that are going on. I'm not as versed as Margaret is on all of this, but I do think we need more transparency as a general rule. It doesn't hurt anything, it only helps. You guys, to me if you meet every ten years, it would be nice if even next year, we start some type of public process, where people just get aware of what's going on. Then their concerns can slowly percolate, and maybe form consensus, and a real community voice, as opposed to, this is a rush, and what's going on, and no one really knows what you guys do, I don't think; a lot of people don't, I certainly didn't. My only other real comment was to the Corporation Counsel and the administrative conflict of interest with the attorneys. I think it would behoove you, to make sure that both entities are fully represented by different individuals, legally. I do remember, years ago, two or three years ago, when the Hokulia thing was happening, Mayor Kim was talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. These are big issues, so I don't think - - -I know everybody on this island kind of knows everybody, and we all get along to a certain degree, but I think with these critical legal issues, you should be very, very, careful and be proactive, to prevent any future problems. So, that's it. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Do we have any one else here to testify? It is approximately 9:35 a.m. and I will close this public meeting. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary 7 Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission