Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 1989-11-30 Minutes of Regular HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Meeting November 30 , 1989 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approximately 9 : 10 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 David Fuertes James O. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Aileen Lum Steven T. Nishikawa Patricia M. Poppe Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary:R. Marie Jacobs Members Francine Duncan Absent: Akira T. Omonaka III . APPROVE MINUTES OF 11/14/89: Upon motion made by Mr. Greenwell and seconded by Mr. L'Orange, the minutes were approved; all were in favor. IV. GENERAL: A. Budget: Bethea: Discussed the Charter Commission' s budget through the election of 1990. Must contact Finance Department Monday with estimate. Feels legal expenses will be low after June 30, 1990 , but that printing and public information costs for the election will be expensive. Feels $70, 000 may cover the costs. Bob Shoji will research public information costs. B. MOTION: Mr. L'Orange made a motion that Chairman Bethea be authorized to present a figure he feels is justified to cover costs to the Finance Department . The motion was seconded by Ms. Cushnie. Discussion took 680 Corrected: 12/15/89 place on details of handouts/mailouts , which was set over for a later time. All were in favor of the motion. V. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Graham/Kohala A. Graham: Said single-member districts for the County would be appropriate and preferable at this time; the State and Federal legislative bodies are voted in at- large (Tape 1: 1: 36) . B. Graham: Mentioned the example of six single-member districts with three elected at-large; said this method of conducting elections places an undue burden on those running at-large, monetarily and timewise. C. Cushnie: Girard Brilliant said if this 6-3 system were instituted, preferred the Council chair be named via the largest vote-getter; he also suggested the largest vote-getter , who would be chair, be named as a replacement for the mayor, instead of the managing director. Graham was asked how he felt re the above. Graham: The 6-3 system creates two classes of Council members. Greenwell: In Brilliant ' s example, the three at-large members are also challengers of the mayor because they come from the same at-large source; Greenwell doesn' t like that. VI. ITEM NO. 4 .a. ON THE AGENDA: Single-Member Districts A. Discussion: Greenwell: Circulated copies of numbers pertaining to census tracts of nine years ago. The districts are divided two ways: 6-3 (Exhibit A) and 9-0 (Exhibit B) for the commission' s review; they give an idea of the area/numbers covered by the districts. Bethea: Questioned how the numbers would tie in with precincts (Tape 1: 1: 25) . Yuen: Precincts are set up by the Lt. Governor , who can redraw precinct lines . Bethea: Questioned whether new precincts would be created if reverted to nine single-member districts . Yuen: Reapportionment committee establishes where the districts are based on a population base; believes that precinct boundaries coincide with census tract boundaries . If a boundary problem exists , can contact Lt. Governor to change a precinct. Yuen: West Hawaii has large precincts. 681 B . Bethea: Presently have 6 legislative districts; if we had 9 Council seats , we would have to create 9 districts. Juvik: State reapportions districts each census also. Reapportionment committee would determine the districts; people shouldn' t decide to vote for or against the districts based on Exhibits A or B; districts will be determined by reapportionment. C . MOTION: Greenwell: Moved that action on district representation be deferred; the motion was seconded by Ms. Poppe. The motion was withdrawn by Mr. Greenwell. D . MOTION: Greenwell : Made a motion to have nine single-member districts (Tape 1 : 1: 12) . Ms. Poppe seconded the motion. 1. Discussion: Lum: Questioned whether both options could be offered to the voters : 9 single-member districts and 6 regular with three at-large Council electees. Yuen: Inconsistent alternatives may be offered to voters , but it would create a problem with ballot design. Juvik: If two options were offered, 50% of the voters would have to chose one option or else the present system would be retained. Only one alternative should be offered. Cushnie: Not necessary to offer every option. Juvik: Purpose of Charter Commission is to narrow down options , but offer an option to present system. Greenwell: Questioned whether should vote unless everyone is present . Poppe: Reminded everyone that once a majority decided an issue, that issue should not be rehashed (Tape 1 : 2:43) . Bethea: Correct , unless majority member wanted to call for another vote. Juvik: Still need the majority of commission members (six) to vote on which plan to present to voters . And members can abstain from voting. 2. Count on Motion: Those voting for or against the proposal to allow 9-single-member districts to be put on the ballot: Cushnie: For Fuertes: Wants to table the motion until all are present to vote. 682 E . MOTION: Fuertes : Made a motion to table the previous motion to allow 9-single-member districts to appear on the ballot until all commission members were present. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lum. A count was taken to see who supported the motion (yes) or did not support the motion (no) : 1. Count on Motion: Cushnie: Yes Lum: Yes Fuertes: Yes Nishikawa: Yes Greenwell: No Poppe: No Juvik: Yes Bethea: Yes L 'Orange: Yes The motion passed. 2. Discussion: Cushnie: All commission members should make the effort to be present to vote, with no excuses. Poppe: Concerned that there may not be a meeting with all members present and items may continually be deferred. Cushnie: Feels members should not be allowed to abstain from voting. Yuen: Cannot force people to vote; but the effect of abstaining is a no vote. Cushnie: Feels it is a courtesy to state a position. L'Orange: Reminded commission members that this motion will stay on the table until such time as someone moves to take it off the table . VII . AGENDA ITEM 4 .b. : Council Issues A. MOTION: Juvik: Moved to defer action on this item and move to item c. on the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. L'Orange. All were in favor and the motion carried. VIII . AGENDA ITEM 4 .c. : Salary Commission A. Discussion: Lum: Boranian recommended that the Salary Commission set the salaries of all elected officials , including the mayor, Council and the prosecuting attorney. He also recommended that the Salary Commission be confirmed by the Council . Bethea: Salary Commission is now appointed by the mayor and is not confirmed by Council (Tape 1: 2: 33) . 683 Bethea: Just because an item was brought up for discussion doesn' t mean it has to be put on the ballot. Juvik: Because Council does not confirm, therefore there is no conflict with the Council setting salaries . Poppe: Mayor is at the mercy of Council re approving his salary. Lum: Problem was that salaries of the mayor and prosecuting attorney are based on formulas which use collective bargaining salaries as a base; the mayor approves these collective bargaining raises , thereby giving himself a raise. That is the conflict. L'Orange: Charter says the mayor ' s salary shall be established by ordinance. Yuen: Boranian referred to the pyramiding effect of civil service salaries being raised; therefore, department heads ' salaries are raised and the mayor ' s salary is raised. B. MOTION: L'Orange: Moves that this section of the Charter not be changed. The reason is , if the commission cannot understand the workings of salary increases , how can the commission explain it on the ballot to the public. Ms. Poppe seconded the motion, and commented that "if it ' s not broke, let ' s not fix it. " All were in favor of the motion; motion carried. C. 4 . Further discussion: Lum: Corp. Counsel was concerned about this item also. Boranian submitted a draft of new wording (see Page 510 , Vol. 3 , minute/ document books) relative to the salary section of the Charter. IX. AGENDA ITEM 4.d. : General Plan A. Discussion. Bethea: Testimony was heard on limiting the General Plan review. Yuen: Other testimony included procedures for amending the General Plan, opposition to allowing the Planning Director to propose amendments to the General Plan during the review, a general statement of purpose for the General Plan was offered, plus testimony from Roger Harris and Kelly Pomeroy. L'Orange/Poppe: Doesn' t feel General Plan Charter changes are the responsibility of this commission; General Plan is a complicated item and Charter is worded in a general way. Juvik: General Plan is dozens of amendments for specific pieces of property; plan should remain general. General 684 Plan approval is bogged down because of specific project approvals . Could include a statement in Charter saying that General Plan should remain general . Juvik: Suggests that on pg. 6 of the Charter , "environmental quality" replace "air pollution" (Tape 1 : 2: 13) . Juvik: Ms . Pomeroy suggested Sec. 3-16 (c) be changed; Planning Director should not propose land use changes on behalf of private developers. L'Orange: Explained process; Council is frustrated by the process also. Poppe: Developer plans are not addressed in the Charter. She suggested making the whole of Sec. 3-16 more general by deleting/adding some material (Tape 2: 1 :46) . L'Orange: There ' s never been a development plan passed for Kona, Kohala or Ka 'u. Poppe: Should include in Charter that development plans will be passed; concern was lack of development plans . L'Orange: Suggested that if changes are to be made to development plan, ought to have knowledgeable people address the Charter Commission on what is/is not in the document; time might prevent this from happening. B. MOTION: L'Orange moves that the commission not take any action or make any changes in the General Plan section of the Charter. Mr. Greenwell seconded the motion. After discussion Mr. L'Orange withdrew his motion and Mr. Greenwell withdrew his second. 1 . Discussion: Juvik: Would like to see "environ- mental quality" inserted in place of "air pollution" in Sec. 3-16. Land rezoning is only significant power County has to rezone or designate land; therefore, community development plans , etc. need to be addressed. If workshop is needed on understanding General Plan operation, then it should be arranged. Bethea: "Air pollution" is a narrower term than "environmental quality" , which would include other issues. Questioned whether word changes could be included in housekeeping items. Poppe: Would like housekeeping items as one package offered to voters . Yuen: Should have brief statement on the ballot plus full text as it would read in new form. Total commission agreed that "environmental quality" should be used. 685 Bethea: Suggested one motion could be made and various housekeeping matters could then be lumped under that one motion. Mr. L'Orange withdrew the motion and Mr. Greenwell ' s second has been withdrawn. C. MOTION: Juvik: Motions that the words "air pollution" be changed to "air and water pollution" in Sec. 3-16; and that "social , economic" be changed to read "social , economic, environmental and governmental issues . " Mr. L'Orange seconded the motion. 1 . Discussion: Poppe: The sentence is too long and air pollution does not take in total meaning. Words "environmental quality" should be the wording, or "standards and principles with respect to environmental quality. " Juvik: Withdraws this motion and suggests that Charter counsel redraft the sentence, not to change the meaning of the section, except to add the pollution and environmental quality concerns . D. MOTION: L'Orange: Makes a motion that no changes be made in the substance and intent of the General Plan section of the Charter , except that the meaning of Sec. 3-16 shall be clarified. Mr. Greenwell seconded the motion. 1 . Discussion. Juvik: Feels this being one of the most important sections of the Charter , it should be addressed. 2. Count on Motion: Cushnie: No Lum: No Fuertes : Yes Nishikawa: No Greenwell : Yes Poppe: No Juvik: No Bethea: Yes L'Orange: Yes 3 . Further discussion: L'Orange: Would like to have specific document before the commission showing proposed changes. The General Plan is a very complicated document. Bethea: There' s no set change proposed yet. Juvik: Only agreeing to keep the issue open at this time. Bethea: Suggests Taka Domingo and Duane Kanuha be asked to address us on the General Plan. Poppe: 686 Also suggests input from the Planning Commission. L'Orange: The problem is with the process . Cushnie: Maybe invite someone else to speak that has seen a 10-year progression of General Plan concerns . L'Orange: Wants to know if it ' s appropriate to address this issue through the Charter or through an appropriate ordinance. X. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 . e. : Police Commission A. Discussion: Bethea: You have Charter counsel ' s report (Exhibit C) . A committee is working on recommen- dations. Lum: Expect to have the report ready by the next meeting. B. MOTION: Mr. Greenwell made a motion to defer this item. Ms. Lum seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was carried. XI. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 .f. : Deputies and Confirmation A. Discussion: Bethea: Raised a question with respect to Art . IV, Sec. 4-3 . Questioned whether the word "appointed" should be changed to "nominated . " Questioned Art. V and VI also. An issue is whether or not appointees without confirmation should be subject to confirmation. Greenwell: If you' re going to have department heads approved by Council , then you might as well make the mayor a city manager (Tape 2: 1 : 12) , because then the mayor would no longer be responsible. Discussed difference between staff and line agencies. Yuen: Art. IV, Sec. 4-3 is significant with respect to agencies created by ordinance. So this says if the County does create an agency by ordinance, the person who administers it shall be appointed by the mayor. No one has raised any issues re this article (Tape 2: 2:43 ) . Cushnie: Mr. Luke suggested changes in Sec. 4-5 (a) : Concerning appointing and removing deputies or assistants or private secretaries , wanted removed the statement , "and such positions shall be exempt from civil service laws and classifications" and inserted, "whose status shall be in accordance with civil service laws . " Bethea: Feels that was a technical change. Cushnie: Feels item should be checked into. Yuen: Suggested rewriting it to say, private secretary is in an exempt position under civil service. Suggested removing rest of sentence after "secretary" ; the Luke change is to bring the Charter into conformity with state law. 687 Bethea: Sec. 4-5 (a) : The sentence, "No such appointment shall be made unless the positions have been created and appropriations therefor have been made by the council" was questioned. Thought County could mandate a deputy and Council had to fund it (Tape 2: 2: 36) . Yuen: There are no mandatory deputy positions in the Charter except for the Assistant Corporation Counsel . Bethea: Feels this should be added: "except for those positions mandated by the Charter , which council must fund. " Greenwell : Sec. 4-5 (a) : Through "created and appropriations" , council is getting into administrative area. Finance should have an assistant director. Bethea: Need to defer second sentence in 4-5(a) . Charter should provide whether there is a deputy. Feels every department should have a deputy and council should fund it. Greenwell : Agrees . Juvik: Council complained because administration was able to appoint permanent staff without council approval . Jacobs: Reallocating positions is one method of hiring staff. Yuen: Previous administration issue was whether the salary ordinance could be a manning table, i. e. could council spell out what every position was going to be in the whole civil service system; mayor didn' t want this; council did. Salary ordinance at this time does not constitute a manning table. Bethea: Should be obligation on part of council to reasonably fund departments created by Charter. Yuen: Minimum legal obligation on Council is to fund the director ' s position in the department . Bethea: Sec. 3-14 : Read "Adoption of Pay Plan" paragraph in connection with Sec. 4-5 (a) , wondering if Sec. 3-14 and Sec. 4-5 affected each other , if the one sentence beginning with, "No such appointment shall be made unless the positions have been created and appropriations therefor have been made by the council" (Sec. 4-5 (a) ) . Agency heads can appoint or fire a deputy. Questioned whether eliminating the above quote would alter Sec. 3-14 , because you are eliminating the need for council to appropriate monies. L'Orange: Questioned whether should add a sentence preventing Council from interpreting another section of Charter. Yuen: Says can add to (a) , " , unless otherwise specifically stated in this Charter" (Tape 2: 2: 18) , and then add a deputy to all existing Charter departments necessary. Suggests retaining, "No such appointment shall be made unless . . . " because there is a question of non-Charter agencies (i .e. Housing) . 688 B. MOTION: Mr. Greenwell made a motion that every Charter agency shall have a deputy position and a private secretary position; Mr. L'Orange seconded. 1. Discussion: Yuen: There are two ways this can be accomplished: a) give administration power to create deputy position, and require council to fund position; b) require deputy position whether or not mayor feels it necessary. Bethea: Asked Chris to draft up new language. 2. Count on Motion: (Some members left earlier. ) Nishikawa: Yes Cushnie: No Fuertes: Yes L'Orange: Yes Lum: Yes Greenwell: Yes Bethea: Yes XII . SET NEXT MEETING It was decided the meeting would be on December 14th at 1 : 30 p.m. Place to be decided later. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12: 15 p.m. upon motion made by Mr. L'Orange and seconded by Mr. Nishikawa. Respectfully submitted, R. Marie Jacobs Secretary-Assistant 689 SIX DIRECT-3 at large # of % of Approx. Notes 19,067 average People District Miles District A6 219 Hamakua-Bdry. to Paahau 3397 220 Hamakua-Paauhau to Ookala 1903 Hamakua 221 N. Hilo-Ookala to to Hilo Hakalau 1500 201 S. Hilo-Hakalau to Sugar Paukaa 5693 202 S. Hilo-Paukaa to Wainaku 1874 203 Hilo-Wainaku to Ponohawai 4601 18968 47 mi. District B6 204 Hilo 4291 205 Hilo 6080 100% 206 Hilo 3962 Hilo 207 Hilo (57% of dist 207) 4734 19067 5 mi. District C6 207 Hilo - (43% of 3510 dist. 207) 208 Hilo 7522 74% Hilo 209 Hilo - S. of Haihai St. 3074 210 Puna - Volcano, Mt. View, Keaau, etc. (43% of dist. 210) 4961 26% 30 mi. 19067 EXHIBIT A 690 (2 pages) dit SIX DIRECT # of % of Approx. Notes people district miles • District D6 210 Puna - Volcano, Mt. View, Keaau (57% of dist. 210) 6447 211 Puna - Pahoa to 75% Puna Kalapana 7593 212 Kau 4700 25% 18740 • District E6 213 S. Kona to Capt. Cook 7300 214 S. Kona to Kealakekua 2997 Kona 215 N. Kona less Kailua (60% of dist. 215) 5770 216 Kailua area (38 % of dist. 216) 3000 19067 40 mi. District F6 215 N. Kona less Kailua (40% of dist. 215) 3918 216 Kailua area (62% of 45% dist 216) 4814 217 S. Kohala 7100 55% 218 N. Kohala 3600 19432 55 mi. At Large - (Hilo by experience) 3 A6 - Hamakua Coast into Hilo 1 B6 - Hilo 1 C6 - Hilo 1 E. Hawaii - 7 D6 - Puna/Kau 1 E6 - Kona 1 691 F6 - 45% Kona / 55% Kohalas 1 W. Hawaii - 2 • NINE DIRECT it of % of Approx. Notes People District Miles District A9 219 Hamakua (Nth Kohala 3397 27% boundary-Paahau) 220 Hamakua (Paahau- Ookala) 1903 15% All 221 N. Hilo (Ookala- Sugar Hakalau) 1500 12% Comnty. 201 S. Hilo (Hakalau Pau kaa) 5639 45% 12439 District B9 202 S. Hilo (Paukaa- Wai nak u) 1874 203 Hilo (Wainaku- 100% Ponohawai St.) 4601 Hilo 204 Hilo (Ponohawai • - Mohou l i St.) 4291. 205 Hilo (Mohouli- Kanoalehua Ave.-32% of distr. 205) 1934 12700 District Cq 205 Hilo (Mohouli- Kanoalehua Ave.-68% of d i st r.205) 4146 100% 206 Hilo (E. of Kanoalehua Hilo Ave.-Puna Dist. bndry.) 3969 207 Hilo (Puainako- Hai hai - 56% of distr. 207) 4585 692 12700 EXHIBIT B (3 pages) NINE DIRECT # of ;'.;;i % of Approx. Notes People District District Miles District D9 207 Hilo (Puainako- Haihai - 44% of dist. 207) 3659 100% 208 Hilo (W. between Hilo Waianuenue & Haihai including Kaumana) 7522 209 Hilo (S. of Haihai - 49% of dist. 209) 1519 8 mi. 12700 District E9 209 Hilo (S. of Haiai St. - 51% of dist. 209) 1555 12% Puna 210 S. Hilo Boundary dist. (Puna-Volcano - includes Mt. View and Glenwood, Keaau and Hawaiian Acres) 11408 88% 12963 28 mi. District F9 211 Puna (Pahoa-Kalapana- Cape Kumakahi) 7593 60% Puna/ 212 Kau (Kalapana-Pahala- Kau Naalehu-S.Kona Bndry.) 4700 37% 213 S. Kona (Milolii to Hookena - 5% of distr. 213) 400 3% 12693 65 mi. 693 NINE DIRECT # of % of Approx. Notes People District miles District G9 213 S. Kona (Hookena to Capt. Cook - 95% of distr. 213) 6900 S. Kona 214 S. Kona (Capt. Cook ] 78% District to Kealakekua) 2997 mostly 215 N. Kona (less Kailua - mauka 29% of distr. 215) 2803 22% 12700 17 mi. District H9 215 N. Kona (less Kailua - 50% distr. 215) 4886 10 mi. 100% 216 N. Kona (Kailua area N. Kona to Pal an i Road) 7814 12700 District I9 215 Northern part of North Kona (50% of distr. 215) 1999 16% South 217 S. Kohala 7100 56% Kohala 218 N. Kohala 3600 28% 12699 55 mi. District A9 - Hamakua District B9 - Hilo District C9 - Hilo District D9 - Hilo District E9 - Puna 694 District F9 - Puna/Kau District G9 - South Kona District H9 - North Kona District I9 - North/South Kohala 'y CHRISTOPHER J. I. lJ EN HILO LAGOON CENTRE,SUITE 108 101 AUPUNI STREET HILO,HAWAII 96720 ATTORNEY AT LAW TEL.(808)935-4429 November 27, 1989 Hawaii County Charter Commission 101 Aupuni Street Hilo Lagoon Centre, Suite 235 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Political Activities of Police Officers Dear Charter Commission Members: I was asked to describe the limits which could be placed on the political activities of police officers. In brief, the County Charter could create any limits which do not contradict the political rights established by H.R.S. §76-91. Permissible limitations would include a prohibition against police officers running for or holding elective office and prohibitions against political activities while in uniform or during work hours. State law (H.R.S. §76-91) gives all civil servants, including police officers, the right to engage in most other kinds of political activities. The remainder of this letter gives the legal background for the brief answer contained in the preceding paragraph. Two points to keep in mind: (1) I will be describing the legal parameters. The wisdom of imposing such limits is the Charter Commission's decision. (2) , While I will be referring primarily to police officers, the legal issues are the same for all civil servants. It is established as a 'matter of federal constitutional law that the government may prohibit employees from soliciting or receiving campaign contributions, belonging to party committees, becoming candidates for partisan office, or taking part in political campaigns in any way. The United States Supreme Court has decided several times, most recently in 1973, that substantial limitations may be placed on the political activities of government employees, including off-duty activities, without violating the U.S. Constitution. The government's interest in having a work force that is untainted by partisan politics outweighs the employee's normal rights under the First Amendment. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) ; State of Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service, 330 U.S. 127 (1947) ; United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973) ; Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) . 695 EXHIBIT C (4 pages) The Supreme Court has never decided just how far the government can go in limiting the political rights of its employees. It seems clear, though, that it cannot forbid employees from simply expressing political opinions. For example, in Blaylock v. United States Merit Protection Board, 851 F. 2d 1348 (11th Cir. 1988) , the employee in question had written a series of anti-Reagan, pro-Mondale articles for the union newspaper. The appellate court held that these did not violate the Hatch Act (which governs the political activities of federal employees) , but that even if they had, there would be a serious constitutional problem in disciplining an employee based on political expression. In another case, Rogerski v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of Moline, 6 Ill. App. 3d 604, 285 N.E. 2d. 230 (1973) , the State court declared that it was unconstitutional to fire a police officer because he had broken a departmental rule by engaging in a casual political discussion with a member of the public. As a general rule, the expression of political opinions by an off-duty government employee will be protected under the First Amendment if it is not part of an organized political campaign. Blaylock. The constitutional issues are not critical in Hawaii because there is a State statute which places some express limitations on the political activities of members of the civil service but which at the same time grants considerable rights. H.R.S. §76-91 provides: Political Activities. No person in the civil service shall (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or affecting the result thereof; (2) use his official authority or influence to coerce the action of any person or party; (3) be obliged to contribute to any political fund or to render any political service, nor shall he be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so or (4) solicit or receive any ' political contribution from any officer or employee, or from any person in any State or County building or from any person receiving any benefit under any law of the State appropriating funds for relief or public assistance or discriminate in favor of, or against any officer or employee on account of political contribution. The foregoing prohibited activities shall not be deemed to preclude the right of any person in the civil service to vote as he chooses and to express his opinions on all political subjects and candidates, nor, to be a member of any political party, organization or club. Any person in the civil service may make voluntary contributions to a political organization for its general expenditures. "Contribution" includes a 69.6 . -2- gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution. H.R.S. §76-92 establishes other rules for civil service employees (and others) : it illegal for any candidate, public officer, or employee to "solicit or assess" political contributions from civil servants; it is illegal for any person to solicit political contributions from civil service employees in public buildings; it is illegal to allow political contributions or activities to influence personnel decisions; and it is illegal for one public officer or employee to give anything to another to be applied to any political purpose. You will recall from my earlier letter on State-County relations that in civil service matters State law will prevail over contradictory provisions in a County charter. HGEA v. County of Maui, 59 Haw. 65, 576 P. 2d 1029 (1978) . H.R.S. §76-91 and §76-92 apply to civil service employees of Hawaii County, and police officers are civil service employees. Therefore, the County Charter cannot impose restrictions on the political activities of police officers that contradict the rights given in H.R.S. §76-91. An argument can be made that the County may not impose any political limits beyond those contained in H.R.S. §76-91 and §76- 92. There is a legal doctrine called "pre-emption" : when the State legislature has enacted a law that is intended to completely regulate the particular subject area, the County cannot enact further laws, even if they do not directly contradict State law. I would not regard the political activities of civil service employees as a pre-empted issue because the State constitution gives the counties the power to enact a code of ethics for its employees, and the regulation of political activities is closely related to ethics in 'government. (Haw. State Const. art. xiv. ) H.R.S. §76-91 covers most political actions. I would interpret the right to belong to a political organization to include taking an active role in a political campaign and to hold an office in a political party or subcommittee. The major political activity not mentioned in H.R.S. §76-91 is candidacy for public office (or holding public office) , and the County could prohibit this. The County may also forbid any political activity by police officers while in uniform. This is consistent with the prohibition in H.R.S. §76-91 against the use of official position or authority for political purposes: any time a police officer acts while in uniform, there exists the strong appearance that he or she is invoking the authority of that uniform. Political activities during work hours may also be prohibited: 697 -3- work hours are for work, and employees may be disciplined for carrying out non-work functions during work hours. Whether the county may prohibit police or other civil service employees from ever soliciting political donations presents a closer question. It can be argued that by prohibiting civil service employees from soliciting contributions from recipients of state assistance, or from any other officer or employee, or from anybody while in a public building, State law impliedly permits them to solicit contributions at other times. Still, the law does not expressly say that they must be given that right, so my opinion would be that the county could impose such a prohibition. I suspect that the members of the Charter Commission may think of other kinds of political activity not covered by this letter. I will be happy to discuss any other issues about which the members may have inquiries. Yours truly, • % /�' -(z Christopher J. \ 'en L [, 698_ -4-