Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-05-29 HAWAIICOUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 20th Session May 29, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The twentieth session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 4: 11 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii, by Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Richard Ishida Mrs. Amy Iwamoto Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira. Omonaka Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Herman Sensano Mr. Joseph Trulson Mr. Basilio Yagong Mr. Matsuo Yanaga Absent Mr. Harlan Cadinha and Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte Excused: Also Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Present: Mrs. Joan Carnett, Secretary APPROVAL The Chair called for approval of Minutes dated OF MINUTES: May 8, 1979. Motion was made by Mr. Trulson to approve minutes of May 8, as submitted. Seconded by Mrs. Kobayashi and unanimously carried. COMMUNI- The following communications were considered: CATIONS: Comm. 48: Copy of correspondence from Sherwood Greenwell to Garry Garrison, dated May 1 , 1979, submitting his resignation from committee on charter review of Kona Coast Chamber of Commerce. Comm. 49: Letter from Francis H. Pell , dated May 5 , 1979, submitting recommended changes to the County Charter. Comm. 50: Statement from Councilman Muneo Sameshima, dated May 15 , 1979, submitting his suggestions for Charter revision. Comm. 51 : Letter from Morris G. Fox, dated May 14, 1979, regarding the constitutionality of the two-year residency requirement to run for county offices. Motion was made by Mr. Trulson to receive and file Communications 48 through 51. Seconded by Mr. Yagong and unanimously carried. APPROVAL The Chair called for approval of Minutes dated OF MINUTES: May 15 , 1979. Motion was made by Mrs. Kobayashi to approve minutes of May 15 , as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Trulson and unanimously carried. COMMUNI-- The following communications were considered: CATIONS: Comm. 52: Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Charles Kohn, Kailua, dated May 21 , 1979, submitting suggested changes to County Charter. Comm. 53 : Letter from Ruth Tabrah, Democratic Party of Hawaii , dated May 18, 1979, submitting language revision to Charter Section 13-4-( f) . Comm. 54: Letter from Hawaii Society of Professional Engineers, dated May 17, 1979, with comments on 16th Session and suggestion for revision to County Charter. Motion was made by Mr. Trulson to receive and file communications 52 through ',54. . Seconded by Mrs. Kobayashi and unanimously carried. PROCEDURE The following discussion was held on the procedure FOR DRAFTING to adopt for drafting of Charter revisions, if any. CHARTER REVISIONS: MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman , can we review the charter page by page and work from that premise? -2- IN There are areas in, which we have agreed to call people that want to come in. . .so anytime that we are in an area where people have indicated they want to come back to us we can table that portion of the charter and proceed to the next area. MR. TRULSON : Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Omonaka' s idea is a good one, that we start from the beginning of the charter and work our way through and when we do come to the areas where we have advised people we would take more input then we can call them. . .or, if we do have questions, we can call them. i don ' t think we should say we have to go from page 1, 2, 3, but if we want to skip sections we should be allowed to and go back to them when we have more information. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will take into consideration Mr. Omonaka' s suggestion that we go through the charter, page by page. . .and if we come to any portion of the charter that has to be tabled in order for people to come in while we are in delib- erations, we can open this to those people at that time. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I think we probably will have to end up doing what Mr. Omonaka has suggested but in hopes to expedite this matter, instead of the entire commission reviewing it from the beginning, page by page, I would suggest that if we could be divided into subcommittees and then we, each subcommittee, would be responsible for one or maybe several sections. At least, there would be an initial attempt to filter out what we think is important and what is not important, or if the committee will feel that they have a consensus as to what they would like to recommend the commission to review or to adopt, then I think maybe they can do that. Of course, always leaving _it open that any other conflicting or opposing viewpoints can always be substituted once they are brought to the commission as a whole. It seems to me it would facilitate matters faster if two or three get-together and just sit down and hammer it out, what should be considered, and then after they have done it then pass everything they have done to all the members of the commission and we can discuss that proposal as a whole. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Ishida, can we do that and still stay within the confines of the Sunshine Law? If you have committees, the committees will have to meet here and be on record, would they not? MR. ODA: in essence, you have to have the sub- committees meeting formally, like this, and going on the record as to their deliberations. So what that suggestion will take if you are going into a subcommittee arrangement then you will have to, in effect, meet outside of this general meeting. In a separate public hearing, so to speak. Public meeting atmosphere where everything is on record so that would require two, if not more, meetings a week for those people involved in a subcommittee, so that they can report back to the general commission meeting on Tuesday. -3- The other concern, I guess, is the matter of getting the people in to meet because of the outlying residences more than once or twice a week. It will have to be under the Sunshine Law, no question. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman, we could perhaps start with a page by page and see how it goes and maybe if it looks like we are not going to have time we may have to go into subcommittees which would have to be in a public hearing type of atmosphere. From my opinion as to what has been presented to us there are not that many different areas of concern and can be boiled down to about a half dozen primary concerns that maybe will take a lot of discussion. Some will fall in. . .as the decisions are made, other things will fall in. I think it would take more time to break into subcommittees, to find a place to meet and to try to get everybody together from the different geographical areas to have a subcommittee. That is just my opinion. MR. ISHIDA: I would assume then that as far as the progress of this commission is concerned that in the event we are pressed for time, then that means that we are going to be meeting for more than once a week, as a body. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will have to, if we are going to meet the deadline. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I think it would be wise if we followed the idea embodied in the motion. Because I am afraid that if_ we do something which may be out of line, up to that point, whatever we have accomplished may be thrown out. And we may lose more time. I don' t know what the feeling of the rest of the commissioners are but if there has been no public input on certain portions, my idea is to just leave them alone. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are there any other suggestions or comments on the procedure? Mr. Oda? MR. ODA: I might be getting ahead a little bit, but if whatever procedure is selected by this commission, there was a comment made that some people be invited back to speak. I would in that case that is done,that it is made only for the purpose of clarification rather than repitition of testimony. If it is going to be repeating testimony, I think we are giving an unfair advantage to only those who are invited. We would have to give the public the right to come in and make whatever state- ments they want all over again. So we will have to be careful we are fair to those people who haven' t had a chance to say: anything or who just didn ' t say anything and not give an over- advantage to others who said something just to repeat what they said. -4- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Would it be fair then that on a certain day if we are going to deliberate on a major topic area we should put it out in the paper or something like that? MR. ODA: I 'm not saying that that has to be done, but if it is, I think that is probably the fairest way you can handle it. To just ask one individual to come in, I think that is sort of violating the spirit of the Sunshine Law. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other comments? Then it is agreeable to all the commissioners that we will read this charter page by page? MR. OMONAKA: If we do this, will this tie our hands in the future for what Mr. Ishida wants us to do? To break up into subcommittees? MR. ISHIDA: I think, basically, we can adopt what Akira has suggested but I think we should be flexible in the event that it is necessary. . .but, as I said, basically, I think we have to do what is suggested. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I have this suggestion, too, that it is going to take time plus the commissioners are from different geographical areas to bring them back together again and then if we do meet in subcommittees we have to go under the Sunshine Law, right? MR. ISHIDA: Principally, what I have in mind as I look at the charter--we can go page by page--but when we hit the legislative branch, the council , I think instead of we discussing as a body, especially in this particular area, I think we should have a subcommittee. There are so many varia- tions involved and if we 'discuss it as a group, I would like to start from one basic position. How do you feel about this? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Will somebody make a motion to adopt Mr. Omonaka' s suggestion and also on Mr. Ishida' s suggestion that we leave this open just in case we have to break into subcommittees? MR. OMONAKA: I would so move. MRS. IWAMOTO: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Mr. Omonaka' s suggestion that we go page by page and also Mr. Ishida' s suggestion that we go into subcommittees if the need arises. All those in favor of this motion , say aye. Nays? The motion is carried. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Along with procedure, I move that this commission set up a subcommittee to look into the area of the legislative branch, in particular, the county council , which is Article III of the present Hawaii County Charter. This subcommittee to consist of a number to be left open at the discretion of the Chairman and that this subcommittee -5- present their proposal to this commission which should then be discussed. I would suggest that this subcommittee be given at least two or three weeks to come up with this. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I second the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we set up a subcommittee, especially on Article III of the Charter which deals with the legislative branch, the county council. That the subcommittee present their proposal in two or three weeks to the commission to discuss this. The personnel number of this subcommittee will be under the discretion of the Chairman. All those in favor? Carried. MR. ODA: I think what Mr. Ishida said regarding having a proposal to kick around, and chew on, and debate, initially, is probably the best way to go on something like this because if it is just going to be wide open for discussion, you really have only the present proposal. If the present proposal is going to be the base on which it is going to be based, that is fine. But, if the subcommittee is going to come up with anything else then that thing has to be proposed to the group and from there on all the comments and discussions will be based on all that and there may be something else come about as a result. I think the idea of starting with a proposal as a base for the discussion is probably, as Mr. Ishida has suggested, a good one. Unless, of course, this commission feels we should start from the base which is the present system and use that as the base. But I think that the subcommittee, if it is created, can look into the merits or demerits of even using the present system as a base. It is up to the subcommittee to present to this body and if this body disagrees, you still have six other votes to override. That is why I suggest five because you still have a majority of the others. CHAIP.MAN SAKATA: I will select the following five commissioners to serve as members of the subcommittee: Richard Ishida, Kona; Basilio Yagong, Hamakua; Mrs. Kobayashi , Hilo; Mr. Omonaka, Pepeekeo and myself. Mr. Ishida will head the subcommittee. And we will set June 19 as the date for the subcommittee to present their proposal. MR. ODA: I think the commission should set a target date as far as all revisions are concerned. An outside date so that we won' t just drag our feet . I would say, at least, July 3. That is just a suggestion. MR. OMONAKA: How about the 10th of July? Then we wi_11 have one month before we finally have to submit it to the county clerk. MR. ISHIDA: I so move. MR. OMONAKA: Second. -6- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we set our target date for final revisions for July 10. All those in favor? Carried. Are there any other procedural problems that we have to discuss? MR. ODA: As I stated to you informally, Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant Governor' s office has kindly offered his services in talking to the commission about ballot design and that kind of thing. I know there is something on the calendar scheduled for the 14th of August. Maybe Mr. George Tamashiro can be invited at that time by the county clerk ' s office. He has consented to come down. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will inform the county clerk ' s office. RECESS: At 5 :00 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 5 : 15 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. FORM OF MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to GOVERNMENT: make the motion that we retain the present form of government as set up under the County Charter. MR. ISHIDA: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we retain the present form of government as:set up under the County Charter. All those in favor? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Discussion on the motion. Is it your intent that you leave all the commissions and every department as they are? MR. TRULSON: No. I withdraw that motion and will form a new one. I move that we retain the concept of government that we now have in the County of Hawaii. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The former motion has been withdrawn and we have a new motion. That we retain the concept of the present system of government. MR. ISHIDA: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Carried. PREAMBLE: MR. TRULSON: I so move that we accept the Preamble as stated on page 1. MR. YAGONG: I second it. -7- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any discussion on this? On accepting the Preamble on page 1? It has been moved and seconded that we accept the Preamble on page 1. All those in favor? Carried. MR. ODA: Procedurally again now I think there should be an understanding that every section that is discussed and is to be acted upon should be by motion of the commission members. So, that on the record it clearly states that it has been considered and that it has been passed by motion. MR. ISHIDA: Are you suggesting by roll call? MR. ODA: Maybe that is a good idea. I think we should, as a matter of fact, by roll call, for the record. I 'm looking at this in terms of the record in the future and if somebody looks at the minutes to determine not only who voted for what, but in terms of legislative or Charter Commission intent. MR. ISHIDA: In that vein, may I suggest also that every motion that is made for adoption, or anything that is for revision, or anything like that, maybe we should state our rationale as to why we believe it should be changed or not. MR. ODA: But the rational should be part of the motion. In other words, those voting on the motion should sort of agree with the rationale of the specific, in other words, the legislative intent. . .The Commission ' s intent or thinking as to why that matter should or should not be amended. MR. ISHIDA: Procedurally, how do you handle that? MR. ODA: Maybe the motion can be made and the person making the motion should make a. . .well, maybe that is all part of the discussion following the motion. Thereby we get the rationale. MR. TRULSON: It will be difficult, in many cases, to make a motion and give all the rationale. For an example, your subcommittee is going to discuss and you will come through with a motion. All the rationale will not be in the motion. It will be in the discussion. MR. ODA: It will be on the record. MR. TRULSON: It will be on ' the record,. yes , but not incorporated in the motion. MR. ODA: We don' t have to call it r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-e but so long as the intent is somewhere on the record whether we call it rationale, or not, during the discussion phase, after the motion is made, or preceding the motion. . .so long as it is there, I think-'that is the main thing. So that a person looking at the record-a- year, two years, five years down the line will know what the commission had considered in arriving at that decision, whatever it might be. 45- MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. We are supposed to be working with charter amendments. In areas where it does not. require an amendment, do we need a motion to stay status quo? I don ' t think it is necessary. Only where we have amendments, then we should have a motion on that and discussion. MR. ODA: I think it is a matter of how far you want to carry the formalities, at this point. Again, I 'm concerned about the record. If there is no discussion of. . . Section 1-1, I guess there is an assumption that nothing was brought up with regard to it. If we go section by section, we have to mention Section 1-1 anyway, and somewhere along the line the matter has to be disposed of. I am thinking maybe the only way to dispose of it is by motion MR. ISHIDA: May I suggest something? Going along with what Akira just said, instead of the motion stating that we adopt the way it is written, maybe we just should say that no revision should be made? No change. A motion to that effect. At least an action has been taken. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any further discussion? None'. Shall we go to Article I? ARTICLE I :, MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Regarding Article I , SECTION 1-1 . Sections 1-1 and 1-2, I move that there be no SECTION 1-2revision. MR. YANAGA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion? MR. ISHIDA: Does that motion cover 1-1 and 1-2? MR. ODA: I have some concern about the broad language of the geographical limits. . . "and all other islands within the shores thereof. " MR. TRULSON: I thought about that but it is strictly a matter of interpretation. How are you going to say, I 'm sure you are talking about maybe Coconut Island, are you going to have to state that, well, every little bit that sticks out around the island. . .how are you going to say it if not "adjacent"? Unless you qualify "adjacent" as being within 500 or 600 yards. I 'm sure that the intent is not to include Oahu, Kauai, Molokai , Maui. MR. ODA: Well, it ' s not within the shores, thereof, and the waters adjacent, thereto. "CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Trulson ' s motion was that we accept Article 1, Sections 1-1 and 1-2 as it is without any revision. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously agreed upon. ) ARTICLE II,: MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that we SECTION 2-1 accept Article II , Section 2-1, without revision. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion on Section 2-1? MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Omonaka, in your 3rd Commission , do you recall why the language was written like this? Was it ever changed or discussed? This Section 2-1? MR. OMONAKA: I 'm not too familiar with that. I can ' t recall it. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman, if possible, I would like to have a copy of the minutes with respect to this. The reason I 'm asking is I 'm comparing the powers as enumerated in the present charter as compared to those enumerated in the other counties. They all seem to be slightly different. I wonder why the difference. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: You are referring to the minutes of the 3rd Charter Commission? MR. ISHIDA: Yes, 3rd Charter Commission. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Almost everybody that has been before us in the past nineteen weeks, and even the members here, have stated that the charter as it is, is essentially very good. I think for us now to go back and what has stood for ten years and try to guess or determine what the meaning is when there has been no input on it. . .evidently, it must be working. Otherwise, I can see where we can take every page and we will be essentially redoing the complete charter. I just think that we do not have the time unless there has been some input from the speakers that have been before us, both the public and the department heads, or the corporation counsel, etc. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to Stuart? Will this, as it now appears in the charter, will it be okay in terms of the powers of the county? As it now appears? MR. ODA: Section 2-1? MR. OMONAKA: Section 2-1 and 2-2. MR. ODA: No problem. MR. OMONAKA: Richard, would you like to table this until you have a chance to review the minutes? MR. ISHIDA: No, it ' s okay. It' s alright. I don' t think the distinction would be that critical. MR. OMONAKA: Shall we question the motion? -10- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Okay, are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 2-1 without any revision. We' ll go to the vote again. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously agreed upon. ) Section 2-2 : CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Section 2-2? MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman, I move that Section 2-2 be approved as it is without revision. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that Section 2-2 be adopted and approved without any revision. Any discussion? Are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 2-2 concerning the powers. We' ll take a vote. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously agreed upon. ) ARTICLE III : CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We are going to table Article III until the subcommittee comes up with a proposal. That would be on the legislative branch. ARTICLE IV: We' ll move to page 7, Article IV. Section 4-1 , SECTION 4-1h Executive Power. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that Article IV, Section 4-1 be approved as is presently in the charter without any revision. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 4-1 as presently written in the charter without any revision. Any discussion on this? Are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 4-1, Executive Powers, as it is in the charter without any revision. We' ll take a vote. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously agreed upon. ) MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. For all practical purposes, the title and the article number has been adopted. . . do we need to act on this. . .it seems awkward to make a motion and not to change anything, that is why. In terms of procedure, it sounds kind of awkward to have a motion and not to change. MR. ODA: Whether you are statingin _a_negative or in a positive, the end result is the same. -11 MR. ISHIDA: A point for clarification. As we go to each of these sections and as we adoptthese motions, what is the effect of these actions? Does that mean that as far as this body is concerned that there is no further discussion on this particular section that we adopt? It can never be reopened? MR. ODA: i wouldn' t say cannot be reopened, but for all practical purposes, that' s it. MR. ISHIDA: In these cases where we do have a unanimous vote, under what conditions can it be reopened? MR. ODA: By a subsequent motion to reopen. MR. ISHIDA: Is that proper? MR. ODA: I don 't see why not. It' s a motion that can be amended or subsequently discussed all over again, if the body feels that way. MR. ISHIDA: I feel that what we are doing, right now, is working toward a tentative draft with that intent that we do have the right to review it the next time around again, if we wish to do so. I just want to make that clear because as we go along and take a unanimous vote, i have a very funny feeling that it may be improper to reopen it unless there is one by an opposing count of persons. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, we can amend our rules of procedure to provide for that. We are allowed to change our rules from time to time. MR. ISHIDA: As long as it is made clear that that is what can be done. . . MR. ODA: Under Rule 23 of Robert' s Rules of Order, it says here, "an amendment may. be inconsistent with one already adopted or may directly conflict with the spirit of the original motion, but it must have a direct bearing upon the subject of that motion. " In other words , you can make an amendment, a motion to amend a previous motion. MR. ISHIDA: After it is passed? MR. ODA: Yes. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Can it be done several meetings after? It doesn ' t have to be done right away? MR. ODA: Yes, I don ' t see any problem there. MR. SENSANO: I believe that these actions that we are taking represent our best thinking, at the present time, with the facts that we have. ' Otherwise, we would never be able -12- to. . .it reminds me of the councilman that came and said, I don ' t have anything to present to you folks here. How can we proceed? At least, these items that we are voting on right now indicates to us what our thinking is. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I think the rules that we have adopted provide for that until the final draft is agreed upon, everything is tentative. It ' s here in the rules. So, according to the rules that we have already adopted, it says that everything we have adopted will be tentative until the final draft is in. MR. ISHIDA: In that case, another question. Is it necessary for a roll call at this juncture? If it is tentative? MR. ODA: It is tentative to the extent of it is still subject to change. However, it may never be brought up again so, I think, a roll call is called for at this point. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I think it may take time to take a roll call vote but I think that if the record shows that a certain commissioner changes his position, then we will be able to follow up the change. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? Before we proceed? SECTION 4-2 : Section 4-2. Organization. Any discussion? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 4-2 be approved without revision. MR. SENSANO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we adopt and approve Section 4-2 on Organization without any revision. A roll call. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously agreed upon. ) SECTION 4-3 : Section 4-3. Appointment by Mayor. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 4-3 be approved without any revision. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on 4-3? MR. ISHIDA: A question. On this it says, "Each agency shall be administered by an officer appointed by the mayor. " Agency incorporates everything. Does that mean if we want to cover an area where department heads, or any head, should have the confirmation of the council, that that can be taken care -13- of by just those specific areas. What I am concerned about is this gives the mayor the general power of any agency that is being created. We have certain departments already in the present charter. Assuming he creates another department, he does not call it another department, he just calls it another agency, or whatever': . .the functions of which I don ' t know whether they would fall directly under any specific department head, these other named departments. . .can he get around that on this provision? I think my concern is, does the "other departments" incorporate all of the functions that the county is responsible for? MR. ODA: May I respond to that? If the mayor, let ' s say, creates a commission on the preservation of seaweed, and appoints somebody to head that commission, theoretically, he would be the supervisor of that department head, right? MR. ISHIDA: Do you think that duty then would fall under any of the other existing departments? I 'm just wondering whether this provision gives the mayor a loophole. . . should we decide later on that all department heads should have council confirmation. MR. ODA: If it ' s not a department then council confirmation would not be necessary. MR. ISHIDA: But "agency" includes departments. MR. ODA: I know, but he cannot create a department on his own. MR. ISHIDA: He may not name it a department. He may name it an agency. MR. ODA: You mean like a committee? A committee on aging, something like that? Theoretically it is a loophole, yes. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ishida, I think we should be careful not to get too restrictive with the charter. I think we have the ordinances that can control much of which the charter has. If you start getting too restrictive everything that is a possibility perhaps has to be in there and I think we are going to have a document that is going to be immense. MR. ISHIDA: My point is this , if this provision is as is and it does give the mayor that opportunity, no ordinance can override it ' s authority. MR. TRULSON: Even with what comes after the comma, "as otherwise provided by this charter"? MR. ISHIDA: Maybe I am being ultraconservative, here, but what I am just thinking of is do all the other departments, the duties of the departments, cover all of the -14 significant areas whereby it does not give the mayor ;any' loophole where he might say, hey, I want to do this but this department won ' t do it, therefore, I ' ll create a new agency under this provision. If I can be convinced that the "other department" does cover everything, then I think. . . MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. i believe the council would have the check on that in terms of the mayor creating another agency, another department. The council will be the appropriating body. So we have a check there. I think the charter now precludes the mayor from setting up any department. He has to live with what we have in the charter. MR. ISHIDA: Right. I go along with that. MR. OMONAKA: Then if he does decide he wants something. Maybe a subdivision of one of those departments, then it is going to require personnel and the appropriation has got to be made by the council. So you have a check there. MR. ISHIDA: This is where we have a problem right now as far as the budgeting is concerned. Where the mayor does have the authority to transfer funds after the budget has been exhausted. This gives him the authority to funnel funds from one department to another. MR. SENSANO: The way I read this is that the mayor has a free hand in running the departments that are authorized by the charter, which is only right it should be this way. The mayor' s hands are pretty well tied as it is. Later on when we come to the other sections, we will probably further tie the hands of the mayor. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. ishida, you mentioned that the transfer of funds between agencies is the present problem that the council is having? MR. ISHIDA: That is what the council said. MR. TRULSON: Article X, Section 10-9. Appropriations: Reduction and Transfer. Could we cover in the charter just what you were speaking about? Wouldn 't that be the appropriate place to put it? MR. ISHIDA: Oh, yes. I 'm just thinking that I don' t want to just adopt something that there may be some problems with. I ,think we should be consistent. If it is going to be covered elsewhere but as long as it is not inconsistent, I think that it is only proper. My only point in raising any question on this one is also the fact that it says an officer can be appointed by the mayor. We have had so much testimony come in where they want. . .especially department heads, to have council confirmation. I did not want members of the commission to think should we adopt this as is this means that we have already kind of committed our position. MR. TRULSON: No. . . '-- -15= MR. ISHIDA: You say, no, but the thing is when you say that, we are saying, okay, let ' s do it the way it is. I just think it should be considered. With that in mind, I 'm willing to adopt this thing as it is. The thing is, I hate to just go along and say, fine, no problem, but if I see that there may be some difficulty, I think we should look at it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We have raised a lot of questions here. Do you think we should table this until we get to that portion? Vote on it? It has been moved and seconded that we approve and adopt Section 4-3. Appointment by Mayor, without any revisions. We' ll' `take a roll call vote. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. ) SECTION 4-4: MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I move no change on Section 4-4. MR. YAGONG: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that no change be made on Section 4-4. Is there any discussion on this? MR. ISHIDA: There were some testimonies saying whether we should have all these commissions or not. If we adopt this provision as is then we are just saying that we endorse what has been going in the past as far as creating all kinds of commissions. MR. ODA: Mr. Ishida, my understanding of advisory commissions is they have nothing to do with commissions such as the water commission, the civil service commission, the planning commission. Advisory commissions are such commissions as he might create, let ' s say, on culture and Hawaiian arts, or something like that. Just to give him some input on something very temporary. Not something permanent. I think there are one or two now in existence. I can ' t really recall what their names are. It' s not something formal like a salary commission which is already in the charter. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: These are strictly commissions that advise the mayor. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. There was some input regarding advisory commissions as far as the cost and they thought that perhaps the mayor and the council, whoever, should do their homework instead of having an advisory commission, but I cannot locate it. MR. ISHIDA: If there was such testimony, may we table this section? I think we should at least look into it and review what testimony was given. Unless somebody has that testimony available now. -16- MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. This section here refers to the mayor' s ability to appoint a commission, or commissions, and unless we are thinking of eliminating commissions entirely even if there were only one commission that he appoints, he wouldn ' t have to have this section. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman, I brought up the fact that there was testimony on it. I am in favor 'of the present language. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Thank you, Mr. Trulson. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Communication #49, Mr. Frances H. Pell of Pahala commented on appointed commissions. Page 2, if I may read it for those who don ' t have it. . .County Commissions. . .he doesn't state whether he means advisory commissions, boards, or what. He does state, "limit the number and type of commissions that may be appointed by the mayor or county council. A commission to study each problem and recommend a course of action is too frequently used as a crutch or delaying tactic. A full time county council, the mayor and department heads must do their 'homework ' in order to formulate programs and adopt timely courses of action that are responsive to the needs of the majority. . .Each commission must be responsible to an elected official or an official body (the mayor and/or the county council) . Semi-autonomous commissions would be prohibited. " That is, basically, what Mr. Pell had to say. That is the only mention regarding commissions, I could recall , and that is not clear as to exactly what he means. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Pell did not specifically state what areas he did not want. I think the charter provision is general enough leaving the kinds of commissions up `to= the mayor. In fact, if we were to 'limit the types of advisory_ __ commissions created by the mayor, how would we do it anyway? Could we do it by subject? Or by number? I think that the section as it stands leaving the number or the creation of such a commission up to the mayor, leaves it up to his discretion. So, it is general enough that it is limiting enough aswell. It is general and limiting at the same time. As long as the mayor can interpret it in the right way. The mayor could interpret it according to Mr. Pell ' s suggestion , by limiting the number of the advisory commissions. Mr. Oda thinks there are only two, then as far as this particular section is concerned, the interpretation has not been extravagant but has been quite conservative. MR. ISHIDA: Let me just say one thing. If Mr. Pell ' s testimony is the only one that concerns the reduction of the advisory commissions, or not, then I don 't think the rationale that he gives justifies a change. I would support it remain as is. -17- CHAIRMAN - SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 4-4 without any revision. (A roll call was taken and the motion was carried unanimously. ) SECTION 4-5 : MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman , what is the procedure on this? Are we going to approve the whole section? Or paragraph by paragraph? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will look at the whole package here on Section 4-5 and can discuss it. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman , I would like to propose one change. . .paragraph (d) . The present language is "Supervise the performance of duties by all employees. " We have had some department heads who have asked for a language change to supervise and train all employees. MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get more clarification on that supervise and train. What do you mean by train? The work? MRS. IWAMOTO: According to what was brought up at the time that they wanted this change it was. . .supervise "and ,train all employees in the performance of their duties. MR. TRULSON: I think the intent of what they had mentioned is that many times you get employees in a certain department who don ' t know what to do and nobody trains them. What they are trying to get at is that it shall be the duty of that department head to train them, as well as supervise them. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Then wouldn 't it be more logical to say "train and supervise"? Is it possible now that some department heads are not training their employees? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Can I ask counsel a question? If we adopt this particular one sentence change, does this mean that this will be one item on the ballot? MR. ODA:: ..Definitely. Even if you added a comma or a period, it would have to be by an amendment. MR. TRULSON: I don ' t think at this time that what is going to be on the ballot we should be considering. We should be considering the changes and then go to the ballot. MR. OMONAKAMr. Chairman. If you use the word supervise in this context, I think it should imply that this department head should be training his employees too. MR. TRULSON: I think they did mention that . Supervising does mean training but, evidently, it is not their interpretation. -18- MR. OMONAKA: Rather than make a charter amendment can we recommend then that these things are not going on and so inform the mayor? Let them know that these things are not happening. MR. ODA: It ' s a matter of how far this commission wants to go in clarifying the language. It ' s a discretionary thing. There is a point about whether supervise means also train but I think it means two different things. My personal feeling is that supervise is to oversee. Train is to indoctrinate and be sure that the employees can perform. When once they are pre- pared for it, then they are supervised. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. If there is a change I would be inclined to say; delete the whole sentence. Because it is taken for granted. Any department head who is really worth his salt should be doing that without being told. MR. ODA: A deletion also requires an amendment. MR. ISHIDA: Is there any real significant change if we do put in the word "train"? MR. TRULSON: I don ' t believe so. I think it just further clarifies "supervise" so if the question is brought up it can be pointed to people that here in the County Charter it says to supervise and train, don ' t just supervise. MR. ISHIDA: Can you say that as far as we are concerned, supervise includes training? Can we say that? Agree among ourselves? Then we don ' t have to change it. This is our intent. Can this be done? MR. TRULSON: I think the department heads are looking for a little more clarification than what our intent is. I think they want it in the charter so that they can indicate there, supervise and train. There is no doubt what the intent is, I think they are asking for a couple of more words. . MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. A supervisor who doesn ' t train would certainly have a difficult time supervising. That is built into the job, itself. MR. TRULSON: Perhaps they could put that into the job description when they hire the man. MR. OMONAKA: Can anyone recall somebody who testified with regard to subparagraph (c)? MR. TRULSON: I don 't recall. . MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. I think I recall somebody made a statement regarding. . .I think this had something to do with the water board. . .that some departments would like to get into a certain, some employees from different departments -19- would like to get into another department and they had difficulties. . .that is what I recall with regard to that statement. I think this had reference to interdepartmental transfer. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Might I suggest that we table the rest of this article until next week and go on to the rest of our business. Because we do have to be out of here by 7,''p'clock. Perhaps by next week somebody will have read through. . .done their homework and will come back and will be able to advise us whether there was any input on the rest of that article. If there was, I don't feel it is fair to state, i;"think._" somebody said something. . .I 've done it myself tonight and I think without looking -back over our minutes to see if something was said. MR. ODA: Maybe that concern can be covered in subsection ( f) "Perform such duties as are prescribed by this charter and such other duties as rif`ay be assigned by the mayor.',-.'•: . .which includes training. If the agency head says it is not my duty, to train, the mayor can say uh,uh, train him! MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve 4-5 without the amendments. MR. ISHIDA: I second the motion in view:. of recommendations and comments made b the opinion as to Y counsel . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion on this? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 4-5 without the amendments. We' ll take a roll vote. a�fc > c./TCfcTT - (A roll call vote was taken and the -� ,.r,,r S 4'01) motion was passed unanimously. ) ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next meeting date - Subcommittee meets Tuesday, June 5 , 1979, 2 :00 p.m. , Hawaii County Council- room. Charter Commission meets at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. if/ Joan Carnett, RECORDING SECRETARY -20