The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN CHC 1989-10-13 PH Minutes of HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Public Hearing and Regular Meeting October 13 , 1989 I . PUBLIC HEARING A. Chairman Bethea called the public hearing to order at approximately 5:07 p.m. at the Honokaa District Court Building, Hawaii . This public hearing is pursuant to Section 15-3 of the County Charter. B. DAVID ANDERSON' S PUBLIC TESTIMONY (Exhibit A) 1. Anderson: The government process frustrates the residents. Need to get the people involved in government (1 : 1: 22) . 2. Anderson: Prefers that Council select representatives from each district to put on commissions , thereby removing that responsi- bility from the mayor ' s office. Commission: This new idea was discussed. Bethea: Says this would mandate six districts with different population groupings (40) than now exists; feels those area districts are:composed of might have nothing in common (i .e. a resort area mixed with agriculture area) . 3 . Anderson: Wants a Councilperson elected from each of six individual districts , with new district lines drawn. 4. Anderson: Planning/zoning concerns should have public input ; people in a democratic government should decide via initiative; there is no other course open to public. The public having such an option would keep the public interested in government. Bethea: Feels government is not a participatory democracy because public hasn' t sat through all the hearings and public testi- mony and are not well versed in details surrounding zoning decisions (34) . Does not feel that whoever conducts most effective campaign should win a zoning dispute. Those selected to serve on the Planning Commission are educated people in the field of planning. 638 5. L'Orange: In California, petition gathering is done professionally now by big business. Do you feel the gathering of signatures should be limited to citizen groups , as opposed to individuals? Anderson: Had no immediate thought on it . In California, the larger business groups hold seats on commissions . C. MIKE LUCE' S PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1. Luce: Does not want initiative on land use (20) in the hands of uneducated public. He serves on the Planning Commission and showed the one foot stack of paper that had to be reviewed on just one land ,use application, illustrating all the information that the public is unaware of; Planning Commission also has input from departments and agencies on any particular matter and therefore puts more credence on what an official says than on an uninformed public comment . If cannot do away with land use initiative totally, then wants to up the percentage required to trigger a ballot situation (12) . 2. Luce: Council confirms appointments to boards and commissions , which is a good check and balance. Does not think it wise to have Council appoint members to boards and commissions . 3 . L'Orange: Asked thoughts re duties of the Planning Commission. Luce: Should not strip commission of powers. Otherwise, Council would have to take on duties , and they are already pressed for time. 4. L'Orange: Is it appropriate for Charter Commission, Planning Commission or Council to address general plan issues in the Charter (1: 2:41)? Luce: Council is presently addressing the issues. IT. GENERAL CHARTER MEETING: There being no further public testimony, Chairman Bethea called the regular Charter meeting to order. 639 A. Roll Call: Members Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Present: Sherwood Greenwell , Vice Chairman David Fuertes H. Peter L'Orange Steven T. Nishikawa Akira T. Omonaka Patricia M. Poppe Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary:R. Marie Jacobs Members Pamela F. Cushnie Absent: Francine Duncan James O. Juvik Aileen Lum B. Bethea: Minutes of 9/29 and 9/30 were approved upon motion made by Mr. L'Orange and seconded by Ms. Poppe; all were in favor. C. L'Orange: Suggests the commission discuss/vote on whether to chose retaining the present mayor-Council system or chose a city manager system of government at the next scheduled meeting. D. Bethea: Attorney Yuen will identify key issues, put them in writing, and mail them to commission members for future discussion. The next meeting date will be discussed after tomorrow' s public hearing. E. Yuen: The deadline for getting Charter wording to the Lt. Governor ' s office is September 7 , 1990. F. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at approxi- mately 6:05 p.m. upon motion made by Ms. Poppe and seconded by Mr. Omonaka. All were in favor. Respectfully submitted, a. )-)e.w),e)y4ed,,J R. Marie Jacobs Secretary-Assistant 640 Presented 10/13/89 • RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHARTER COMMISSION FROM PAAUILO MAUKA - KALOPA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION After discussion among our membership and with representatives of other ' groups on the Island which are working toward a uniform set of proposals, the Paauilo Mauka - Kalopa Community Association asks that the following principles be incorporated into the Hawaii County Charter. County Council The present method of choosing the County Council is unfair, because the districts are not properly represented. District residency requirements mean little if the choice is made by voters outside the district. There can be no stronger proof of this than the instances we have seen where a council candidate is elected in spite of losing the vote in the home district. On the other hand, we believe the interests of the County as a whole should also be represented on the Council. We therefore ask that either of the following systems be implemented: 1. that there be six council districts, and each district elect one council member, with an additional three members chosen at-large; or 2. that there be nine council districts, and candidates be selected by voters onlywithin their districts in the primaryelection, but by island-wide vote in the general election. These systems both have the further advantage that they reduce the costs of political campaigns for at least some of the candidates, and thus make political office more widely accessible, and less dependent upon contributions from special interests. Planning Commission We believe that planning issues are the real key to quality of life for our people, and just as with the County Council, district residency requirements are not an adequate safeguard of the public interest. Once commissioners are appointed, their tenure in office is not affected by what kind of a job they do or how responsive they are to public concerns. They serve a longer term than the officials who appoint and confirm them. There has been a disproportionate representation on the Commission of individuals connected with the land development industries. We believe the interests of good government would be better served by decentralizing the appointive power for this body, and we therefore ask 641 EXHIBIT A • that each of the County Council members fill one of the appointive (r J positions. This would mean changing the Commissioners' terms to four years instead of five, but the terms could still be staggered, by having some Council members appoint in the middle of their terms, and some at the beginning. The cycle could be started by having all members appoint at once, but for differing periods of time. We further propose that whatever changes need to be made in order to transfer responsibility for SMA permits to our elected County Council should be undertaken, because the shoreline is one of our most precious, limited and sensitive resources. Citizen Participation Citizen participation in government is a vital and healthy part of a democracy, and should not be seen as a burden or a luxury we can't afford. Toward this end, we support the following principles: 1. The County Charter should not be changed to limit the scope of initiative and referendum actions. In fact, it should be broadened to allow "straw votes", either island-wide or within any grouping of census tracts. 2. The number of signatures required on an initiative or referendum petition should be changed to 8%. The present 15%, toward the high end of the scale nationally, might be more appropriate for a small town or more compact urban area; it is less appropriate for a far-flung county such as ours. We note that on Kauai, the requirement is only 5%. 3. Petition signatures should remain valid for two years if the required percentage is 8%. If the percentage is higher, six months should be added for each percentage point over 8%. 4. The number of signatures required on a charter amendment should not exceed 15% of the number of votes cast for the office of mayor in the last general mayoral election. The present system, requiring 20% of the number of voters registered for the last election, makes charter amendment by the people virtually impossible. 5. Wording of ballot measures should be such that the average citizen will be able to decide which way to vote. Those submitting the ballot issue should be able to suggest wording, and this should not be overridden excpet for good cause. If questions arise on any of the foregoing, please contact David Anderson, P.O. Box 1487, Honokaa HI 96727; 775-9958. 642