Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 1989-11-14 .. j Minutes of Regular HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION ; Meeting November 14 , 1989 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approximately 9:07 a.m. at the Conference Room, County Liquor Department , 101 Aupuni , Hilo, Hawaii . II. ROLL CALL Members Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Present: Sherwood Greenwell , Vice Chairman Pamela F. Cushnie James 0. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Aileen Lum Steven T. Nishikawa Patricia M. Poppe Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary:R. Marie Jacobs Members Francine Duncan Absent: David Fuertes Akira T. Omonaka III . APPROVE MINUTES OF 10/31/89: MOTION: Upon motion made by Mr. L'Orange and seconded by Ms . Poppe, the minutes were approved. All were in favor. IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Kengo Nagasako (Exhibit A) A. Nagasako: Discusses which variation of single-member districts to include on the ballot (Tape 1: 1:44) : 1 . Nagasako: Elected terms should be two years only; the present system of 4-year terms for Council members was instituted because Council members were going to run at-large islandwide. Juvik: Questioned whether two-year terms would lend to more elections and campaign costs. Nagasako: Suggested reducing federal/state 668 i _ limits for campaign spending. Greenwell : If campaign districts are set up, candidates would have less expenses (Tape 1 : 1 : 38) ; and candidates would be closer to constituents . 2. Nagasako: A seven-member Council is adequate; a nine-member Council was instituted to balance the six district members with three at-large members. Bethea: Asked whether the County should retain its 4-year terms if the present at-large system were retained. Nagasako: If representatives dealing with national problems serve only two-year terms, cannot justify why Council members should serve four years. Supports the at-large system. 3 . Juvik: Questioned whether previous Charter Commissions discussed making Council seats non-partisan. Nagasako: Believes it was discussed. V. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 : District variations and reapportion- ment discussed A. Juvik: A motion was made at the last meeting that an optional districting plan would be presented to residents to vote on. Yuen: To include a specific district form on the ballot , a majority vote of all is necessary, sa majority members not justJ Y of those present at the meeting. Commission members were polled on their preferences for district elections (all single-member districts or a mix of at- large and single-member) : 1. Bethea: Refrained from voting because is opposed to 9 single-member districts; but would alternatively vote for a 6 - 3 option because it is most similar to totally at-large. Feels issues of reapportionment and single-member districts belong to a package. L'Orange: Doesn' t feel package should be offered to voters. 2. Lum: Refrained from voting because is opposed to 9 single-member districts; feels council should work together as a group, rather than considering individual district needs. If the commission is offering a choice based on public testimony, a city manager option should also have been offered to the voters based on the number of citizen responses heard by the commission. Would prefer; 6 - 3 option if single-member districts is to be on ballot. 669 3 . Poppe: Prefers 6 - 3 system ( .e. 6 districts with 3 at-large) . Agreedthat Council Chairman should be one with most votes_ Pointed out that the majority previously agreed to offer to voters an alternative in district represen- tation; hopes that when majority votes on an issue in future, all members will actively participate in final decision, even though some members may not agree with the majority vote (Tape 1: 2:43) . 4 . Nishikawa: Refrained from voting initially because feels council members should be concerned with whole island instead of individual districts (Tape 1: 1:8) . 5. Cushnie: Prefers 9 districts with none at-large, but would agree to a 6 - 3 option; would also consider a 7 or 8 member Council. 6. Juvik: Nine single-member districts might be "cleanest; " but a 6 - 3 mix would be a bridge from the present system to possibly a total single-member district system in the future. Council chair should be elected by Council from the 1 - 3 at-large candidates . Also supports minimizing gerrymandering (Tape 1: 1 : 23) and considering some semblance of the present judicial districts. 7. Greenwell: Prefers 9 single-member districts; but would alternatively vote for 8 districts with 1 at-large Council chair. Also prefers city manager , but feels like it ' s too different an option to offer voters at this time. 8 . L'Orange: Strongly urges commission to offer district option to voters. Feels all commission members should voice which option they prefer, whether or not they vote for one or the other. Prefers 9 single-member districts. But would vote for an alternative if single-member districts are included in a combination option (i. e. 6 - 3 or similar) . Feels the largest vote getter may not have the blessing of the majority of Council people when chosing Council chair . B. L'Orange: Suggests putting this on next agenda when all members will be present to cast votes. 670 C. Bethea: Need a reapportionment plan adopted as part of the district proposal . The reapportionment plan will set up standards for the reapportionment committee. Yuen: Also need to decide how selection of committee will be handled (1: 2: 30) ; committee needs to decide where a district ends , at what number. A fixed baseline may create problems . D. Juvik: Proposes a 7-member reapportionment committee. Mayor would appoint three without Council approval ; Council appoints three; and those six appoint the chair from outside the group (proposition No. 1) . You can use an appointee from each of 6 districts . Bethea: Questioned the need of geographical areas being represented. If yes , have mayor appoint and the Council approve; if not , accept Dr. Juvik' s 3-3-1 proposal , using Police Commission language for the geopgrahical areas , but having mayor appoint and Council confirm (proposition No. 2) . A hand count was taken in which two voted for proposition No. 1 and the rest voted for proposition No. 2. E. Bethea: Re reapportionment committee, questioned whether residency is important; took a straw vote: 1 . L'Orange: No. Diverse interests more important. 2. Greenwell: Residency unimportant. Council members are presently all elected at- large, and they still fight among themselves . 3 . Juvik: Geographical representation is important. 4. Cushnie: Geographical representation is important. Has noticed that even at-large electees gravitate toward needs in their areas once they are in office. 5. Nishikawa: Geographical important. 6 . Poppe: Geographical . 7. Lum: Geographical unnecessary; appointees should be neutral . 8 . Bethea: Geographical unnecessary. 671 F. Bethea: Legal counsel suggested that districts be composed of physically contiguous parts. ' Once boundary line is fixed , you work with figures until you come out with reasonable boundaries. Juvik: All districts have to be moved until balance is achieved; general guidelines can be set for reapportionment committee to protect judicial communities. Cushnie: Understood greater flexibility could be achieved if no fixed starting line existed. Greenwell : Cannot seek socio-economic continuity in districts . Bethea: Yuen will come up with general guidelines re not having a fixed baseline. G. Juvik: If Charter Commission decided to make Council elections non-partisan, wanted assurance that reapportion committee would be non-partisan also; wanted to hear Charter Commission' s opinion. Yuen: Charter says no more than a bare majority of members of a commission can be members of one political party. Bethea: Doesn' t feel non-partisanism should affect reapportion committee. H. Yuen: Should sticking to state representative districts be a guideline? State will have to reapportion, so old districts would change because of population changes . No proposal need be drafted re a set baseline; just a vote is necessary by commission. I. Bethea: Third item to include is reapportionment should be reviewed every 10 years . VI. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Proposed Police Commission changes A. Bethea: Chief says Charter does not list guidelines of activities Police Commission can engage in beyond hiring/firing of chief. Commission recommends they be allowed to conduct investigations re illegal activities or abuse of authority. B. Bethea: Police Chief wants Commission to review rules and regulations. Chief wants Commission to review punishments meted out for offenses. Yuen: Commission can have no power re punishments , because police officers function under union contract . Juvik: Honolulu Police Commission makes recommenda- tions for punishments and passes that on to Chief. C. Bethea: Chief wants Commission to review annual budget and make recommendations and submit an annual report to the mayor and Council . 672 D. Bethea: Police Chief wants Commissioniempowered to receive, consider and investigate charges brought by the public against members of the department and submit written report to the chief. Charter presently says Commission will not interfere with the adminis- trative affairs of the department . Commission would like to make recommendations based on a unanimous vote re punishments; which would include hiring a private investigator. E. Bethea: Police Chief wants to be removed by the Commission only after a written statement listing reasons for removal is submitted and after a hearing. F. Bethea: Police Chief suggested a 5-year minimum police experience requirement with a 3-year administrative experience requirement. G. Bethea: Police Commission should be able to suspend officers based on rules of the department. H. Bethea: Chief suggested officers not be allowed to engage in political activities except to vote. Yuen: State law prevails in giving civil service employees rights to express political opinions on political subjects and candidates. Bethea: Wants a brief memo from Chris re this and whether political restrictions can be placed on officers for next meeting. L'Orange: Says a federal employee cannot campaign during work hours, and especially doesn' t feel police officers should campaign in uniform. I. Poppe: Wanted a straw vote taken re Police Commission. Bethea: No. 1: Retain present system. No. 2: Amend Charter provisions to give Police Commission more powers generally along the lines suggested by Chief Vierra. Everyone was in favor of proposition No. 2 via hand count. VII . PUBLIC TESTIMONY by Russell Homa: MOTION: Upon motion made by Mr. Greenwell and seconded by Ms . Cushnie, this testimony was taken; all were in favor: A. Homa: Chp. 2 , Charter, Police Department , Sec. 7-2. 3 : Mentioned that there was only one internal affairs investigator. Majority of police are Portugese and when investigations are done, a Portugese officer will not harrass one of their own race or family. Need to balance out racial propor- tions in Police Department . 673 B. Homa: Need an efficient department with at least three investigators . C. Homa: Need to run Police Department more like a military operation--stricter discipline. D. Homa: Amend the last sentence to read: For the purposes of inquiry, the commission can interfere. . . " giving the commission investigative powers (2: 1: 18) . VIII. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 : Gender-neutral language MOTION: Dr. Juvik made a motion to amend the Charter to make the language gender-neutral ; the motion was seconded by Mr. Greenwell. Discussion: None. Count on Motion: All were in favor , with the exception of Ms. Poppe, who was opposed. Motion carried. IX. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: A. MOTION: Preamble: Upon motion made by Mr. Greenwell and seconded by Ms. Poppe, it was agreed to retain the Charter ' s preamble as is . 1. Discussion: None. 2. Count on Motion: All were in favor. Motion carried. B. MOTION: Article I: Motion was made by Mr. L'Orange to retain the article as is ; and motion was seconded by Ms. Lum 1. Discussion: Poppe: Bothered by the language, "all other islands within the shores thereof and the waters adjacent thereto. " Questioned how far out the boundary of the islands go. Juvik: Cannot exceed geographical boundaries of the U. S. Doesn' t seem to be any ambiguity. L'Orange: Is bothered by "waters adjacent thereto. " Juvik: State takes jurisdiction over waters. Yuen: State and federal law govern what people do on boats. Major concern is that Charter not limit County' s powers . 2. Count on Motion: All were in favor of motion as made; motion carried. 674 C. MOTION: Article II: Motion was made by Dr. Juvik to retain article as is. Motion was seconded by Ms. Poppe. 1 . Discussion: Bethea: Questioned "by ordinance or resolution" and "makes no provision" in Sec. 2-2. Yuen: Charter does state which things are done by each: Legislative acts by Council are accomplished via ordinance (Tape 2: 1 :7) ; non-legislative acts are accomplished by resolution. Some items are self-executing (i . e. establishment of Planning Commission) . Greenwell: Resolutions are used for the transfer of funds. Yuen: No one has raised a problem with this article. Cushnie: Reminder that Planning Director Kanuha raised a question of instituting fines. Yuen: This article does not limit County' s authority to levy civil fines. Cushnie: Mentioned. Research & Development did not follow Charter guidelines re research and library functions and questioned whether powers of Charter should be reiterated in their case (Tape 2: 2:41) . 2. Count on Motion: All were in favor; motion carried. D. MOTION: Article III : Motion was made by Mr. Greenwell to discuss this article at the next meeting; motion was seconded by Ms. Poppe. 1. Discussion: Bethea/Greenwell : Article is lengthy and should be carried over. 2. Count on Motion: All were in favor; motion carried. X. SET NEXT MEETING: The next meeting will be November 30 , 1989 at 9 :00 a.m. Place to be determined and announced later. XI . ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at approximately 11: 37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 41"! meds� R. Marie Jacobs Secretary-Assistant 675 45 Aloalo'Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 November.1-21 1989 r31 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Charter Review Commission: I am Kengo Nagasako, a resident of Hilo and a registered voter of the Second Representative District. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on one of the items on your agenda--namely, item 4, "Discussion and possible action on what variation of single-member districts to include on the voter ballot;..." The first issue I wish to discuss concerns the term of office for your proposed single-member district council members. Is there any justification for a term longer than two years? In my considered judgment, the answer is NO. We may want to remind ourselves that the members of the Board of Supervisors, the predecessor of the present County Council, served two-year terms. In fact, the Chairman of the Board and Executive Officer of the County, ran at-large island wide and served a two-year term too. It's significant to note also that only two-year terms for Council members were considered and proposed by both the First Charter Commission in 1964 and the Second Charter Commission in 1966. Under the present compromise plan for district and at-large representation on the County Council, a four-year term was proposed by the Third Charter Commission for one reason only--the requirement that all the council members run at-large island wide. The second issue concerns the number of single-member districts to be formed. May I propose to you that a seven-member County Council is more than adequate to serve as the policymaking body of the County of Hawaii. EXHIBIT A 676 (Two pages) I refer again to the Board of Supervisors which served effectively until the County Charter was adopted in 1968. The Board was composed of seven members--three from East Hawaii, three from West Hawaii, and the Chairman of the Board, who served also as the Executive Officer, or Mayor, of the County of Hawaii. It should be noted also that both the First Charter Commission and the Second Charter Commission proposed seven-member county councils. The Third Charter Commission proposed a nine-member county council for one reason only-that is, to establish an equitable balance between district representation and at-large representation on the council. A seven-member council, composed of six district members and one at-large member, was considered first, but because of the imbalance two more at-large members were added. To summarize, I have presented two proposals concerning your single- member district representation plan-namely, (1 ) the term of office for the council members 10 be no longer. than two years, and (2) the number of council members to be no more than seven. My firm belief is that these two proposals are worthy of your serious consideration. Thank you, and best wishes as you proceed with your deliberations. G Kengo Nagaako� 677