Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-06-05 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 21st Session June 5 , 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The twenty-first session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 4: 15 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii , by Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Harlan Cadinha .. Mr. Richard Ishida Mrs. Amy Iwamoto Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira Omonaka Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Basilio Yagong Mr. Matsuo Yanaga Absent Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte and Mr. Herman Sensano Excused : Mr. Joseph Trulson Also Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Present: Mrs. Joan Carnett , Secretary APPROVAL The Chair called for the approval of minutes OF MINUTES: dated May 22, 1979 with the following correction: Page 43. . .3rd paragraph begasse. .to. .bagasse Motion was made by Mrs. Kobayashi to approve the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mrs . Iwamoto and unani- mously carried. COMMUNI- The following communications were considered : CATIONS : Comm. 55 : Letter from Deborah Chang Abreu, dated May 22, 1979 , submitting suggested revisions to the County Charter. L\\ Comm. 56: Statement of Jay Maixner, dated May 22, 1979, submitting suggested revisions to the County Charter. Comm. 57: Statement of Masayuki Kawasaki , dated May 22, 1979, submitting suggestions for revision to the County Charter. Comm. 58: Letter from Tom Grande, Common Cause/Hawaii, dated May 21 , 1979, requesting ,copy of draft for sunset provision, if any, to County Charter. Comm. 59 : Letter from Ginny Aste, Status of Women, dated May 22, 1979, submitting suggested revision to the County Charter. Comm. 60: Letter from Jean Eckert, Kona Business & Professional Women, dated May 23, 1979 , submitting endorsements on suggested revisions to the County Charter. Comm. 61 : Letter from J. Curt Tyler, Jr. , dated May 23 , 1979, with comments and suggestions for Charter revision. Comm. 62: Letter from Webster Nolan, West Hawaii Today, dated May 29, 1979, submitting copy of editorial as published on suggested proposals for Charter revision. Comm. 63 : Letter from William W. Moss , West Hawaii Committee, dated May 26, 1979 , submitting comments and suggestions for Charter revision. Comm. 64: Letter from H.Peter L'Orange, Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference, dated May 23 , 1979 , regarding forthcoming communication on Charter revision. Motion was made by Mrs. Iwamoto to receive and file Communications 55 through 64. Seconded by Mr. Yagong and unanimously carried. BUSINESS CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The business of the day will be OF THE DAY: to continue drafting revisions to the charter. Last week, we set a subcommittee on 'Article III, Legislative Branch pertaining to the county council. We have met, this afternoon, from 2 o' clock and deliberated on this so that we can present it to the body as a whole. So, the Legislative branch is still to be finalized and presented to the body and today we will go into the revision of Article V. -2- ARTICLE V: MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman, Section 5-1 .1, 5-1.2, SECTION and 5-1.3. I don ' t believe there has been any 5-1.1 testimony indicating recommending any changes in 5-1 .2 those three provisions and after my review, I 5=1 .3 don ' t see any reason for any of the provisions to be changed, so I move, at this time, that we keep it as is. MR. YAGONG: I second it. MR. CADINHA: Are you referring to the whole Article V? MR. ISHIDA: No, just 1. 1 , 1.2, and 1.3. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 5-1. 1 , 5-1.2, and 5-1 .3 without any changes. Is there any discussion? MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. Regarding the Section 5-1.2 Qualifications, where it says that the mayor must be "a duly qualified elector of the county for at least three years immediately preceding his election. " There appears to be some question about the constitutionality of this provision of three years. There was a case in 1972 that was decided by the Hawaii _ Supreme Court, in the case of York vs State of Hawaii whereby the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the three year residency require- ment for employment fri the state was unconstitutional. And I had done some other research, with the assistance of my research assistant, who has reviewed court cases throughout the mainland and they go in all directions, but, generally speaking, it appears that any kind of residency requirements over one year would probably appear to be unconstitutional. That is the gist of what the research seems to indicate. MR. '"ISHIDA: As written, is: it invalid? MR. ODA: For three years? I think so. MR. ISHIDA: Are you recommending that that provision be deleted? MR. ODA: I don ' t know whether I am overstepping my bounds, but I would think that that would probably be the best thing to do. I note that Honolulu and Maui, for example, do not have any duration of residency requirements, also. MRS. KOBAYASHI : How about Kauai? MR. ODA: Kauai has a very old charter provision in there. They have the same residency requirement as we do, but thei ' s is up for amendment and review again, _next year, I think, or this year. They have a three year requirement, also. Kauai and the Big Island. I have a resume of the research which I will pass out. -3- MR. ISHIDA: Is there any basis upon which we could establish some residency requirement? MR. ODA: I think some kind of residency _is permissable. The question is, what is the rationale or the reason for the establishment of the residency requirement. MR. ISHIDA: I think the common rationale is that somebody who has lived here and is familiar with the county. Only the basis that unless a person has been living within the county, especially out in the Big Island, I don ' t see how he can say he is familiar with the intricacies, as far as this island is concerned. MR. ODA: I think the court cases have discussed that. They have sort of submerged that, or set aside that argument based on the fact that. . .two grounds, one, generally speaking, a person who is not familiar with the area, will not generally seek the election to begin with and, secondly, if he does, the electorate has the option of electing whomever they want. So whether they want to elect an ignorant person or a newcomer, or an old-timer, is left to their final choice. The courts have indicated that df-=that is what the voters want, it is up to them. That is the final protection and safeguard that is built-in. Whomever they elect they will have to accept, I guess, for the term of office. But they don ' t consider the mere fact that familiarity with the community or the problems are an insurmountable kind of thing. In fact, they don ' t even give that much consideration. MR. .ISHIDA: is there any basis upon which we can use residency requirements? Or are you telling us that any attempt to place any kind of requirement basis on residency is completely void? MR. ODA: As I say, unless you can have a very, ; very good reason , aside from just familiarity. MR. ISHIDA: I guess what I am asking you is what is that reason? MR. ODA: I don ' t know. MR. CADINHA: I ' ll submit one. Just for familiarity purposes, especially when you get down to district representation. MR. ODA: The courts don ' t give it that much weight as being :'important enough to be ,considered to satisfy the test. MR. CADINHA: It is not sufficiently important to have the person in the community for one year? So that he can be familiar with his constituents ' needs? MR. ODA: They are not saying that it is not sufficiently important, they are saying that there are other avenues whereby the public can be protected, such as , not even -4- voting for that man. Let the man run and let the voters determineWhom they want. Whether they want a person unfamiliar with the county government or county problems, that is up to them. The final protection and the final check by the checks and balances is with the voters. So, what they are saying is that, in itself, is not enough to satisfy the courts to justify any kind of residency requirements. What they are saying is you can have a residency requirement that is limited. Very, very limited in terms of time but, as I said, anything beyond one year is automatically suspect, already. MR. CADINHA: We don ' t have to show intent on a one year requirement? MR. ODA: No, we don ' t have to put intent. That has to be argued in case it is challenged. The same thing goes for the county council. MR. ISHIDA: You are telling us that one year is acceptable, then? MR. ODA: I cannot say. It is kind of hedging but the court cases have gone all over the place. Some have approved three months. Others have--there was one case in Washington, I think, that the State of Washington upheld a five year requirement. One case in Michigan that held invalid the three year residency requirement. MR. ISHIDA: In the York vs State, what state of residency was that? MR. ODA: That was Hawaii, the State of Hawaii. A civil service law. MR. ISHIDA: What was this State House of not less than three years upheld in 1973? MR. ODA: That was a case of Hays vs Gill. He ran for the State Senate, I believe. State Legislature, anyway. That one was upheld back in ' 70. And yet you have in 1972, York vs State. . . MR. ISHIDA: You say a distinction can be made between elective office as opposed to a civil service employee? MR. ODA: I suppose on that alone, it is a distinction, but I don ' t know how. . . MR. CADINHA: Stu, what is the logic behind the governor having to be a resident for five years, then? MR. ODA: Nobody has challenged that. I don ' t know. Even for federal offices you' ll notice seven years. . nine years for the senate, seven years for the U.S. House. -5- MRS. KOBAYASHI : What would be the definition of "duly qualified elector"? Does that mean that the person had to vote in the last election? MR. ODA: Not to vote, but presently qualified to vote. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Presently qualified means he would have to be a certain age and have a certain residence. MR. ODA: It would depend on the qualifications to vote. But, generally speaking, to qualify to vote, you don ' t need residency. MRS. KOBAYASHI : You have to have an address so they can assign you a precinct. MR. ODA: You can move 'here from the mainland, tomorrow, and register to vote. MRS. KOBAYASHI : And you can become a duly qualified elector.? MR. ODA: As long as you register before the deadline. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It ' s kind of, you might say, mixed up, in a sense, that the state requires certain residency in years to run for office and then, here, we come back to the county level and we say, okay, if we do incorporate into the charter, the wording that says a person must be a citizen of the United States and must be a qualified elector of the county, we are saying that this might not be legal. MR. ODA: All these cases from Washington all the way down to California dealt with local county level offices. The York vs State case and Hays vs Gill , all deal with the county level. MR. ISHIDA: Let me ask one question. In that York case, is any distinction being made with the Hays case? MR. ODA: No, I don ' t recall seeing anything on that. MR. ISHIDA: No reference, whatsoever? MR. ODA: That was a challenge to the civil service statutes in ConCon. By the way, that three year provision is still in the state law. In 1972 it was thrown out as unconstitutional by the Hawaii Supreme Court. MR. ISHIDA: And the recent ConCon didn ' t take care of that. MR. ODA: What I am saying, is the wording is still in there. The revisor of statutes did not eliminate it. -6- MR. CADINHA: And the governor isn ' t considered in that category? MR. ODA: What category? MR. CADINHA: - Officers, whether elected or appointed shall be citizens. . .the governor has a five year residency, doesn ' t he? And the Supreme Court threw out a three year residency? MR. ODA: The Hawaii Supreme Court, yes. MR. CADINHA: But before you can run for governor, you've got to be here five years. MR. ODA: They just decide on the question that is presented them. They don ' t expand the decision. MR. CADINHA: Then, theoretically, we can use anything we want and if it is challenged and thrown out in court, then it ' s invalid. Until such time, it is valid. MR. ODA: Not necessarily, I think you have to be guided by present rules. You cannot just say, okay, we' ll let them challenge it and set up a five year or ten year, whatever. MR. ISHIDA: Could we not use this Hays case as supporting our three year residency for county elected- office? MR. ODA: I don 't think the Hays case is that relevant because it deals with a state level office. I think the distinction. . . MR. ISHIDA: Elected. . . MR. ODA: Yes. MR. ISHIDA: Why do you say the York is more applicable to the county? MR. ODA: Because the York case dealt with all levels of government service, whereas the Hays case just dealt with state legislative office. MR. ISHIDA: And you see no distinction between employees and elected officers? MR. ODA: No, I didn ' t:say that. The distinction between the two cases is. . .the York case, the one with the three year requirement for civil service jobs dealt with all realms. Something that affected all government agencies, including county government. Whereas, the Hays case did not. All it affected was, I think, the state senate, at that time. As a matter of fact, right now, I suspect that if the Hays case was to go up before the Hawaii Supreme Court again, I 'm not sure whether they would uphold the same decision. -7- MR. ISHIDA: One more question, to clarify in my mind. The York case, was it construed on the State Constitution? Or was it the Federal Constitution? MR. ODA: I am not sure, but it was based on equal protection rights. MR. ISHIDA: If it was construed on the Hawaii Constitution, I can, see the distinction. But, otherwise, I can ' t see the distinction. . . MR. ODA: Well, all I can say is that my role is to advise this commission and whatever you folks want to do, whatever years you want to put in there, that is the decision you will have to make. MR. CADINHA: Stuart, what is the ;intent behind this not putting in residency? Exactly, what is the intent? MR. ODA: I think again, this is what I gather from the flavor of the court decisions. . .in not having residency requirements is that since the days of local protectionism and that kind of thing. . .this is throughout the nation, now. . .that the concept of free and unhampered travel and the right to the-mobile society that we have, that govern- ment agencies should not set up arbitrary requirements as to who can get =:jobs, who can apply for welfare, who can run for elective office. . . MR. CADINHA: Regardless of which level of government? MR. ODA: Well , I think the higher level of office, the greater the tendency of providing some kind of qualifications, some kind of criteria of just residency. You' ll notice that, examing the various levels of government offices.., But, I think that at the county level which is the lowest level of government office holding. . .especially, that level , because that level of government is closest to the people with whom they are dealing and I think, basically, the courts tend to feel that especially at that level they have to be very careful their representation and the right of people to run for office is more stringently protected. As I say, you always can fall back to the idea that for all we know, the best qualified candidate might walk into and transfer- to _the. county from Alabama, this month. . .Or from California, wherever, and let the electorate choose. In other words, I suppose it ' s more of leave it up to the voters, to their intelligence, to make a decision. Standards of roadblocks tend to have been looked upon with some suspicion, especially the last ten years. To prevent people from doing this or doing that. . .I think the times are changing and the philosophy of the courts are changing, as a result. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman , in view of what legalt;ounsel has just informed us, I will at this time, if my -8- second will go along, move that the three year term be changed to one year. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there anymore discussion on this? Then on Section 5-1. 2, Mr. Ishida, on qualifications rather than have that for three years, we change it to one year? MR. CADINHA: A point of discussion for the subcommittee, that is working on the other Article, with regard to the Legislative Branch, that perhaps we carry the one year throughout for everyone. MR. ISHIDA: I am assuming legal counsel is saying that one year can be upheld. MR. ODA: I am looking at the same summary that you are looking at. You notice the .California decision on the middle of the page. . .there is one year residency in the city, six months in the district was held invalid. •The courts said thirty days would be okay. MR. CADINHA: Yes, but the court in Washington said five years is fine. MR. ODA: I know. So, you know, you have this diversion. At least, I would recommend that whatever the residency requirements are between the mayor and the council that they be consistent. Otherwise, it is very difficult to justify. MR. CADINHA: Are we going to vote on this, Mr. Ishida? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Richard, onVr. Cadinha' s proposal for the one year residency for the council, we' ll consider that next week, right? We' ll take that into consider- ation when we finalize our decision in the subcommittee. The motion now stands as Section 5-1. 1 and Section 5-1 .2 with deletion of( three years) and insert the one year residency, and 5-1.3 , as is, without any revisions. Is that clear. We' ll take a roll call vote on Section 5-1. 1 , Section 5-1.2 and Section 5-1.3. Election and Term of Office; Qualifi- cations ; Compensation of the mayor' s office. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) SECTION Next, we will go into Section 5-1.4. Powers, 5-1.4 Duties and Functions. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. On the Section 5-1.4, Subsection (e) "Recommend to the council a pay plan for all officers and employees of the county. " If I remember, there was some input on that, was there not? -9= MR. OMONAKA: That is collective bargaining, Mr. Chairman. . . MR. ISHIDA: Employees are covered under collective bargaining, but officers are not. I just wondered what the effect of it would be if we just left it as is. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: On Subsection (e) it says that "Recommend to the council a pay plan for all officers and employees of the county or any of its boards and commissions. " On boards and commissions, I think boards and commissions don ' t get paid, you know. Regular commissions, executive areas do, I see. Is there any other discussion? Do you want to leave it as such. MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t know. Legal counsel , can we just leave it as it is? Does the phrase "otherwise provided for" take care of all exemptions, those inapplicable individuals? MR. ODA: What is the specific concern? MR. ISHIDA: Just whether the collective bargaining thing. . .I just thought that something came up, some testimony concerning this provision. I wasn ' t sure what it was. If nothing came up, then I don ' t see anything wrong with it. And, I assume the collective bargaining provision is. .it really makes no difference. MR. CADINHA: There was something that came up that I recall, I think from the West Hawaii Committee with reference to all elected officials that before they could have a raise it was suggested--I believe it was Frank Zuzak who suggested that it be thrown out to the public the same way they suggested we handle the general obligation bond float. That is the only thing I can recall . MR. ISHIDA: I know what it was that was bothering me. What was bothering me was recommend to the council a pay .plan. Does that effectively take this recommendation power away from the council? Can the council adopt a pay plan in the absence of a recommendation by the mayor? MR. ODA: That ' s an executive function, right? It ' s not a legislative function. Only adoption is. It has to be initiated by the administration. MR. ISHIDA: Otherwise, the council, on its own, cannot bring it up? MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I have a question of the rest of this commission. Why do we need a managing director? Can anybody give a good reason? Because under an organizational chart you have an elected mayor who, theoretically, is an administrative mayor and not a glad-hander. And, reporting to him is a managing director, so it ' s a one on one reporting -10- system and then you have department heads. Why couldn ' t you just have department heads reporting to the mayor? And, if he has an administrative function with public works, he talks to the public works guy. If it is pertaining to the planning, he talks to the planning department head and you give him some leeway in_ =Subsection (b) where he can appoint the necessary staff as long as he has council appropriation. Why are we creating a department head as a charter item to be carried that is a managing director? I don ' t know what function he provides. I know we are not in that section now, but in Section 5-1.4 (a) it says, "and through the managing director. " That is why I bring it up. I 'm saying a managing director is fine, if a need is shown today, but by putting it in the charter, we are going to have one for ten years whether we need one or not. By eliminating "and through the managing director" in this section, we can cross that bridge later. I don ' t know whether we want one or not. I don' t see that. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: There isn ' t a need for a managing director. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I believe at the time we were doing the administrative overview, we never did. . .did we ever have the managing director come and talk to us? I don ' t recall. Perhaps he could be invited to talk to us at some future meeting, unless Akira can shed some light on previous. . . MR. OMONAKA: If you will look at the organiza- tional setup, under the executive branch and the so-called staff agencies -under the mayor and certain departments like public works, parks and recreation are set`: up with the managing director running these departments. The other agencies are so-called executive types. In this way, too, I think if you had something like this, you have a line of succession in terms of temporary vacancy. MR. ISHIDA: I think the only reason they probably did it is probably just dividing up the direct supervision of the different can departments. I know yousay mayor or is Y responsible for all of them anyway. I think that provision in Subsection ( a) in essence, still makes the mayor responsible. MR. CADINHA: The current administration has administrative aides. He has a managing director and a deputy managing director. . . MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Harlan a question. Harlan , are you saying that wetake out the ,. managing director's job? MR. CADINHA: Well , I 'm asking for a good reason why it should be in there. If there is a. . .Akira, the best' -- reason that he said, for succession, if something happens to the -11- mayor, then who would?, You would have to then appoint somebody for succession purposes. But if this were a private corpora- tion , we wouldn ' t have that kind of a body. The president would have to stand up here and say, look , my time is split ;fifteen ways, I need an administrative aide, how much are you going to pay him? We seem to have three or four there. But rather than just cut the mayor off and say, hey, no help, you are going to scramble. . .rather than make it a charter item, if we can have the mayor just submit to council for his administrative staff, for his budget and who he is going to hire. Once you make a charter provision for the next decade, you are going to have to fund that. MR. YANAGA: Are you thinking along the line of cutting down expenses? MR. CADINHA: Yes, anything that is non-purposeful, why pay for it? That' s a moral question. It's kind of a back- ward question. Is there a real reason? Because I don ' t under- stand. If that guy is going to run some departments and the deputy is going to run other departments, what does the mayor do? Are we really in a strong mayor concept of government? Is the mayor relegated to handing out leis and counting city keys? I don ' t think so. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Harlan, do you feel then that the mayor should have the power if he needs that position he will have the power to appoint that person, rather than have it in black and white that there should be that position? MR. CADINHA: He should budget it. He should bring it to council and say, I need an administrative type person to be budgeting to do this function, rather than the charter saying, hey, you have a department head and he has a deputy and then there_" is another deputy, or office of complaints, whatever it is. The -mayor should have to prove in these things, annually. Because what we put in the charter is going to have to be funded, period. Whether there is a real need or whether the complexion changes, I would think that a mayor that is elected by the people of the county should be able to design his own hierarchy. Maybe a guy doesn ' t want to work through a managing director. Maybe a guy wants to sit down--if you elect a different person--maybe a guy wants to sit down with every department head every morning, and yet we' ve got to pay a managing director and his staff because it is in the charter. This is my question. Different mayors may have different characters. They may have a different style and yet we are legislating, really, through the charter, we are telling the guy how he is going to organize his staff. I wonder whether we should. That is my question, I 'm not saying, take him away. MR. YANAGA: The way I am observing now regarding the managing director, he seems like he is working his butt off. Maybe he is working harder than the mayor, for all you know. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. It kind of makes me feel a little bit uneasy that the person we are talking about, we have never talked to as a commission. It seems like we are -12- talking about him behind his back without giving him the opportunity to answer. I just wonder if perhaps--and I reluctantly do it, but perhaps this particular section could be tabled until we get some concrete answers. . .either from the man , himself, or from the mayor. I don ' t see how we can act with these kinds of questions in our minds. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do we have any discussion? MR. CADINHA: Akira, you people put this in the last charter. Under the board of supervisors, did the mayor always have an equivalent that department heads reported to? MR. OMONAKA: If I remember the old setup, the board of supervisors, each member had equal powers with the mayor and they had the right to go to every department. So, this is why we changed the concept to say that, okay, you have a legislative board and an.''administrative .board. I think the present setup, from what I hear from people within the county there is no particular problem. I don ' t see the need for any change. MR. CADINHA: Well , I move to approve Section 5-1.4, 1 .5 , and 1.6, as it reads. MR. OMONAKA: What are you into now, Harlan? MR. CADINHA: I move that we approve everything with the exception of 5-1_. 7. The only reason I leave that out is we have got to =.clarif.y : what impeachment proceedings are and we cover that one more time. But everything else, I move that we just adopt as is. MR. OMONAKA: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 5-1.4, 5-1.5 , and 5-1 .6 as written in the charter. Any discussion on this? Any other discussion? If not, are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 5-1.4, 5-1 .5 , and 5-1.6 as stated in the charter. (A roll call vote was taken and carried with Mrs. Kobayashi dissenting. ) SECTION Mr. Cadinha, you commented on 5-1.7. =77-- MR. -- MR. CADINHA: Yes, 5-1. 7. How do we remove the mayor? We covered that one time with our counsel about what impeachment proceedings were. The law does not lay that out. So, let ' s say we have a banana that gets appointed mayor and the guy, obviously, becomes a difficult person. Is this removal step sufficiently clear, Stuart? 5-1. 7? MR. ODA: I don ' t know of anything else in the charter. -13- MR. CADINHA: If we were the council and we thought the mayor was crazy or something and we wanted his removal , how would we proceed? What would be our steps? MR. ODA: Right now, the only thing to do by court action. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Who initiates the action, the people? MR. ODA: The people, or the council . I 'm thinking about President Nixon ' s matter, now® I know there was something in reference to impeachment in the Constitution. There might be something in the federal law as to how a congressman or the president can be impeached. But as provided by law, as I say, I don ' t know of any law. MR. ISHIDA: There is no state statute that defines impeachment? MR. ODA: There _might "be but I don' t know of any, _offhand. MR. ISHIDA: Or the Hawaii Constitution? MR. ODA: I ' ll have to look into that. MR. CADINHA: Do we want to provide some kind of a removal step? Do we want to design our own? MR. ISHIDA: Would we consider that matter when we take up the issue of recall? If we have recall, then that would be a provision that would provide for such a situation. MR. CADINHA: We don ' t want the council to have any effect on the removal of the mayor. MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t know. Personally, I don ' t th1:nk it is wise. But, I think, if you go on the basis of an impeachment proceedinge . .if I remember what impeachment proceeding means by law, I think the council initiates it, one of the means of initiating, I should say. MR. CADINHA: Should we just leave the section alone, for now? MR. ISHIDA: I think so. Since legal counsel is going to take some time to look into the matter. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Shall we table this? MR. CADINHA: I so move. MR. ISHIDA: I second. MRS. KOBAYASHI : The same thing would apply to the county council. Removal of council in the same sentence. In the same manner you remove the mayor, you remove the council. It is very vague. -14- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: In other words, the language is not that clear as to how the proceedings would take place. It has been moved and seconded that we defer Section 5-1. 7 until next time. Any discussion? Are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we defer this Section 5-1. 7 until next time. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried unanimously. ) CORPORATION Next, we will go to Corporation Counsel. COUNSEL MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we should tackle the question now of special counsel for the council. Whether we want that at all,--or_whether we want that to be part of the corporation counsel ' s department, or not. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman, do you want to take that up, now? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do you want to take up that matter of legal counsel to the council? Right now? MRS. IWAMOTO: I thought that the subcommittee was going to_ work on this. MR. ISHIDA: We' ll take this up as part of that. But, what I think what Harlan is concerned about is does not that affect some of the powers asdescribed in here? If that is the case, maybe we should just defer corporation counsel in its entirety, at this time, until. . .what do you think, Harlan? MR. CADINHA: I have my own opinions, but I am one of eleven and that is why I wanted to throw these things out because we haven ' t talked about these things. That ' s my concern , Richard, thank you. Because if we go through and approve corporation counsel as it is and later on we decide, hey, that special counsel should be part of the corporation counsel , we have to come back and redo this. MR. ISHIDA: Let ' s expedite matters, Mr. Chairman. May I move that we defer this matter until the subcommittee comes up with its recommendations? MRS. KOBAYASHI : I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we defer this matter until later. Any discussion? (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) -15- DEPARTMENT MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Section 5-3. 1. OF FINANCE I move that we adopt it as is. SECTION 5-3. 1 CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there a second. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion on it? Section 5-3. 1 . Organization of the department of finance Are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 5-3.1 on Organization of the department of finance. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) SECTION MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I move that Section 5-3.2 5-3.2 be amended to include council approval. I think that when this department head is picked and selected, it should go with the approval of the council. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there a second to this? MR. ISHIDA: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any discussion on it? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Harlan, this department merely is kind of a staff like of the mayor. Do you really think it is necessary to have this finance chairman confirmed by the council? MR. CADINHA: I dor from the simple standpoint that you place the man holding the financial reins on a day to day basis under some authority relationship with the council. I don ' t think there is any problem in practice now, but, theoretically, you could run into a situation where if there are any financial misdealings going on at the county level, that a very sharp penciled person could just put a puppet, if you will , in that position and there is no recourse. I think it is important that council vote on department heads in general. I will probably recommend this for all department heads. MR. OMONAKA: _What about removal of the director once he is appointed? Let_! s say the mayor finds this person totally incapable of doing the work, will he need council concurrence to dismiss, also? MR. CADINHA: No, my position is for the appointment. MR. ISHIDA: I would like to state a support of that motion. My position, I think, after reviewing all the things is that all department heads should receive council confirmation. I will take that position, hereafter. Removal , strictly, I think , is at the discretion of the mayor. -16- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion? MR. OMONAKA: A question, Mr. Chairman. Harlan, then are you saying that all department heads other than those that are set up like commissions, should have confirmation by the council on appointment? MR. CADINHA: As we go through the departments, I anticipate, just like Richard said, and we didn ' t get-together prior to the meeting, but I feel that way,_because as a practical matter, our council is unable to get to some departmentsin the county, where the person does not need council approval. The reception to councilmen that are feeling constituency pressure all the time, is either hot or cold, depending upon whether they need approval and from the broad philosophical outlook, I personally feel , and we've had this kind of testimony, that the council should be strengthened a little bit. I think this is a good way to add that strength and yet the mayor still has his administrative leeway. This does nothing to his administra- tive powers, at all . But it stops anyone in the future that may be wanting to line up some ducks on a fence and layer the nest, so to speak. This way, when it has got to come for confirmation every time, I think it is an additional safety valve. That is my logic. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any other discussion? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 5-3.2 on Appointment and Removal of the director of finance as amended that the : director of finance shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council and the removal will still be the pre- rogative of the mayor. . . MR. ISHIDA.• Maybe on that language, just to be y consistent, I don ' t know if legal counsel will go along with this but, the language on the corporation counsel reads, "shall be appointed bythe mayor with the approval of the council. " t Now, as far as just language-wise, legal counsel, which is better? Do you say confirmed, or just with approval? MR. ODA: Approval seems to be a kind of a relaxed term, where confirm seems to have a stronger connotation. That ' s the feeling I get. I would think confirmation is better. Approval is a little too broad and vague. MR. YANAGA: So what you are saying is the finance department head is appointed by the mayor and will get approval confirmation by the council. To remove him you will get another confirmation by the council. MR. CADINHA: No, the mayor can fire him. Just - for approval. Nothing against Stanley. I think the guy has done a good job. But just in the future, it ' s a good thing. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any other discussion? Are you ready for the question? Section 5-3. 2. It has been moved and seconded that the wording be changed that the director of finance shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) -17- SECTION Powers, Duties and Functions of the director 5-3.3 of finance. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Just a point of clarification. The director of finance, according to that Subsection ( 1 ) is the purchasing agent, the treasurer and the auditor; All those positions became him, under his office? It says, "Where not in conflict with this charter, assume and perform all the duties and functions of the purchasing agent, the treasurer and the auditor. . .as provided by law. " I wanted to be sure that there are no longer these other positions. There still are these other positions? • _ CHAIRMAN SAKATA: You mean the purchasing agent, the treasurer ;arid. the auditor? MRS. KOBAYASHI : The way I read it is that the director of finance is all these three positions. Am I reading this right? Or am I wrong? My reading of this chapter says that he took over the responsibilities of these three. . . MR. OMONAKA: Under the old setup, we used to have a purchasing agent. We used to have a treasurer- -. who was elected and an auditor who was elected, also. MRS. KOBAYASHI : These were elected officials? MR. OMONAKA: I think if you will remember, the county treasurer was elected, the auditor was elected and they had a special person al- signed as as a purchasing agent. So, what they are saying then that the functions of these are included in the functions of the finance department. MRS. KOBAYASHI : But they might be in the county still , these positions? MR. OMONAKA: Yes, it was my understanding that they have somebody assigned as the purchasing agent and • . • • MRS. KOBAYASHI : It was not the director of finance' s job to do all of these things. MR. OMONAKA: It ' s the department' s job. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It is the director of finance' s job to appoint a deputy. . . MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept Section 5-3.3 as written. MR. CADINHA: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept Section 5-3. 3 as it is written in the charter. -18- Any. other discussion on this? The question is that we adopt Section 5-3.3 as written in the charter. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) SECTION Pension Board. MR. ISHIDA: What is the function of the pension board? As I read into it, it seems like it is a board that has been provided for by state. That it was in existence prior to the charter and just happened to be carried on. MR. CADINHA: It, may be _an _administrative board because all county employees belong in ;the_,s'tate retirement system. But, perhaps, it sounds like there are administrative responsibilities if there is a question pertaining to the Big Island that is relegated to a pension board on this island to deal with the people, I would guess. But the managing of all the money and everything else is done jointly with the state retirement system. So it must be an administrative thing from the standpoint of handling questions. MR. OMONAKA: I think there was a kind of separate pension plan set up so maybe we should table this? I move to table. MR. ISHIDA: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we defer Section 5-3.4 until later on. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion to defer was carried. ) PLANNING MR. YANAGA: I don ' t know if I am in order, but DEPARTMENT this is only a recommendation. I would like to see the planning department and the research and development, the two be merged together. MR. CADINHA: Is that a motion. MR. YANAGA: Yes, I make it a motion. MR. CADINHA: I second it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been made a motion that the planning department and the department of research and development be merged. It has been seconded. Is there any discussion on this? MR. CADINHA: We have to, somehow, write in though that these functions have to be provided for within the planning department' s -kuleana. MR. ODA: There may be something in the collective bargaining statutes themselves. . .which I have to check out. -19- If. any reorganization of government agencies take place that there should not be necessarily any elimination of staff. They don ' t say you cannot reorganize, what they say is that if you do, you just cannot eliminate jobs. MR. OMONAKA: Could we then have a motion to defer this, at this time? It would involve other agencies, also. MR. CADINHA: Fish, your motion is not necessarily to cut jobs, though, it ' s in terms of importance. That one department can provide the same functions , right? MR. OMONAKA: I move to defer it. MR. CADINHA: Counsel, is there a reading on that? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we defer the planning department until next time when counsel comes up with some information. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Is the motion to defer the discussion of the entire article, or just the concept? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Just the motion.: . Defer the motion as to the merging of the planning department and the research and development. Any discussion on this? (A roll call vote was taken to defer and was carried with the exception of Mr. Cadinha who voted no. ) SECTION MR. ODA: Just a point of clarification. Section 77T7T-- 5-4.1 under organization refers to a board of adjustment and appeals and on page 13 under Section 5-4.4 refers to a board of. . .I believe they are referring to the same thing. MR. ISHIDA: I was just going to ask you, what is a board of adjustment? MR. ODA: There is no board of adjustment. Thereis a= hoard of appeals. I would recommend to the commission that regardless of what it might feel about the board of appeals that the word "adjustment" be dropped, be deleted. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, I move for adoption of 5-4.1 with the deletion of the word !'adjustment." MRS. IWAMOTO: I second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 5-4. 1 with the deletion of the word ( adjustment) . Any discussion? -20- MRS. KOBAYASHI : If this motion is adopted, and should we approve the merger, it would be all right? Because it does say necessary staff. MR. OMONAKA: Yes, I think my motion is intended so not,._to= preclude "that. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Okay. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Board of appeals. I don ' t know of any necessity of having a board of appeals. MR. OMONAKA: I believe we had some testimony from the county planning director, that even though its function is very minimal , we just got feeling that we need..__-t-his appeals board there just, if anything, to look over the work of the planning director and the planning commission. He recommended that this board of appeals be left in the charter. The other thing that I can remember he said was that perhaps the words arbitrary or capricious manner should not be the only thing that the appeals board can act on. RECESS: At 5 :50 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 6 : 10 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is still on the floor. We are waiting for discussion on the board of appeals. MR. ISHIDA: I_ _think we can adopt 5-4. 1 as has been moved. My reservation can be taken care of in some other areas. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any other discussion on 5-4. 1? The motion is to approve Section 5-4.1 by deleting the words" ( adjustment: and) . If there is no other discussion on this , are you- ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 5-4. 1 as it is but by deleting the words (adjustment and) . (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) PLANNING MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t wish to make it a practice DIRECTOR of deferring things , however, I would like to express my concerns in the remainder of this Chapter 4. As I_ understand it, there are situations where it presently exists the planning director may make certain decisions on his own. From there it may then go to the planning commission or may go to the board of appeals. To make it uniform, I think we should review this thing in light of maybe granting the director certain powers. However, if any review is to be done, it should be done by the planning commission. Then, thereafter, should the planning commission ' s action not==be"'accept"able, -then-__ the board of appeals be available to the individual. -21- I cannot, right now, tell you exactly what provision we should specifically modify. This is why I don ' t think we are ready to do it. What I would like this commission to take into consideration is that, as I understand now, any changes to the general plan is such that it must be initiated by the director, exclusively. I think that situation is wrong. I think any general plan initiation should be available to both the director and also to the planning commission , and also to the council , if they wish. As I understand it now the planning director is the only one. .and the commission- and the council is is excluded from initiating any general plan changes. I also feel that variances to ordinances, subdivision ordinances or any zoning ordinances , which the planning commission does have the power now to grant, I believe should be delegated or granted outright to the director with review provisions in the commission. I would like to see that this provision in this chapter be, at least, modified to reflect these concerns. I don ' t know how the other commission members feel. To do that, I think that it has to be somewhat revamped, and I don' t know how procedurally we should handle it. Maybe we can have legal counsel. . .well , maybe we can discuss our concern, whether we are, in fact, concerned about what I brought up. And, if so, then maybe we can have the legal counsel redraft the provision to reflect our concerns. MR. OMONAKA: Why don ' t you incorporate this thing into a motion , then? Perhaps legal counsel then can provide language for us in the two areas that you talked about. MR. CADINHA: Are you clear, conceptually, of what you want, Richard? MR. ISHIDA: At least those two areas , definitely. MR. CADINHA: Would legal counsel be the one to rewrite this section? MR. ISHIDA: Someone, I believe, should rewrite it. MR. CADINHA: This is just discussion, but this is why I voted no on that thing because maybe--on Fish' s--because maybe we have to rewrite this whole section. And, that somebody , either a committee or the planning director--if we vote, in concept, to have it structured a certain way. o ..he can rewrite to incorporate statistics, research and development and the planning department however this body feels in concept and we give him the power of the pen , so to speak. Can ' t we approve something in concept, Akira? MR. OMONAKA: I guess so. MR. ISHIDA: Because it still would be subject to adoption as written. MR. OMONAKA: Yes, if it is going to be merged it would have to be rewritten. Basically, the duties of the planning director, as spelled out here, as Richard proposed we can work on that concept and if we do merge with R & D and -22- develop a department then we just add on to his duties. That should suffice. MR. CADINHA: And the appeals procedures? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Your two areas of concern, Richard, were they suggested as changes by the planning director? I think only the last one was, right? MR. ISHIDA: The first one was not because it came up after the planning director testified. I think it is something serious enough that we should take care of it. I think that the planning director, prior to that opinion coming up, , ,he had no idea that that would have been held that way. MR. CADINHA: Richard, could you say it again, in layman ' s language. Exactly, procedurally, how you view the mechanics, now. On the appeals process. MR. ISHIDA: As I understand these provisions, there are certain areas like denying a zoning change, which the director can do. Legal counsel, I am correct on that, right? The director has authority to do that. ._ The review of that action does not go to the planning commission. It goes directly to the board of appeals. Unfortunately, there is, in denying the zoning request, there is no procedure whereby the director takes evidence, in essence. I mean, he will take in whatever he wants, but then the review process is such that the board of appeals looks" at it on what is presented and says , well, the director acted capriciously or arbitrarily. I think if we are going to provide for an appeal situation , then I think we should provide a procedure whereby the appeal agency will be able to take its evidence to determine whether the action of the. . .the requested action should be granted or denied. In the case of, again, in the planning commission it is slightly different. Here, all variances go to the planning commission. At least, however, the testimony and evidence that is presented in that situation is taken down verbatim. So, at least, that action is appealed to the board of appeals and, at least, they have something to review. I think the review process should be consistent, whatsoever. What I would like to see is that if we are going to grant the director certain powers to deny requests , I believe, instead of going directly to the board of appeals, such an appeals to the director ' s action go directly to a fact finding board. . .an agency. . .in other words, a planning commission. Then the planning commission ' s record would be taken verbatim and a record would then be available to the board of. appeals. Something the board of appeals could review. MR. CADINHA: Who on the planning commission would be responsible for probing, for gathering facts? MR. ISHIDA: The planning the staff of the planning department. In other words, the applicant would be -23- the one to present the facts, favorable to him, of course. But then, of course, the staff of the planning department would do their own to determine whether how slanted the presentation is. MR. CADINHA: Right now, you are saying, that is not done? MR. ISHIDA: Well , in the variances, it is. MR. CADINHA: On the rezoning it is not. MR. ISHIDA: It isn ' t being done on the rezoning. I 'm sure there must be others. I cannot say that what I am saying completely covers everything. Conceptually, if the commission is in agreement, I would like to see,, at least, the director be granted the power of denying or granting variances. As the planning director did testify before us,' :I'-don ' t think he felt it was such a good idea to give the complete authority to the commission , and let the commission then delegate whatever it wished to delegate to the director. I suppose that is one way it can be done. I don 't think that should be it. My position, here, is, if it is in agreement with the commission, that I would flke legal counsel to redraft this chapter, Chapter 4, Planning, to take into consideration these two areas whereby the grantrin and_denial of variances would be granted, that authority-would be granted to the planning director. Subject, of course, any disapproval would then be reviewed directly to the planning commission. And, also, the general plan amendment, definitely. I would like to see that, of course, the director be allowed to initiate and give his input, initiate changes. However, I don ' t wish to have that authority restricted only to the planning director. I would like the planning commission to be granted that authority to do so, also. As I understand the corporation counsel ' s opinion, it also limits or restricts the council ' s power to initiate any general plan amendment. I think that should be corrected. I think the council should--some language maybe could take care of it in Article III. However, i believe the council in anything that is at fault within its legislative authority, should be somewhat given the broad grant of powers to initiate things. I 'm sure there are some areas where it should not be given but anyway as far =as specifically to this general plan amendment, I believe, that it should also have the authority to initiate changes. With that in mind, I would like to move to that effect. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Richard, have you made a motion to defer this? MR. ISHIDA: No, I made a motion to have legal counsel redraft this chapter, taking into his thinking the concerns that I have brought up. Also, I would like to emphasize that this is not all inclusive, what I have indicated. I 'm sure there are others that other commission members would like to have taken into consideration. -24- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Did we have a second to that motion? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Yes. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mrs. Kobayashi. Is there any other discussion on this? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. The concept, Richard, you have is that we authorize the planning director to allow for variances. Are you saying, in a very broad sense, of just limiting variances of so-called, not too critical, day to day kind of variance? MR. ISHIDA: I can understand your concern on that. I don ' t know how to limit it. The only thing I can say is that these variances, generally, are covered in ordinances. The standards are listed in the ordinances and, of course, in the granting or denying of these variances, it would have to adhere to these standards as stated in the zoning ordinances. However, the only thing is should the applicant disagree with the action of the director, at least, there will be another forum, or body consisting of more than one individual to listen to this. MR. OMONAKA: That ' s the planning commission? MR. ISHIDA: Right, the planning commission. MR. CADINHA: And then your intent, Richard, is that if: there _is__ a. redourse- desired then the board of appeals. It reviews the planning commission ' s decision, right? MR. ISHIDA: Right. I think the board of appeals should review the decision of the planning commission. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: You have it step by step, Richard. The planning director and if that is denied, to the planning commission, then to the board of appeals. Any other discussion? MR. OMONAKA: So, the intent of your motion is to go right into Section 5-4. 3 and 5-4.4? MR. ISHIDA: Yes, right. MR. CADINHA: The whole chapter, basically. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Chapter 4, in its entirety? 5-4. 2 to 5-4.4. MR. ISHIDA: 5-4. 2 through 5-4.4. MR. OMONAKA: Can I ask the makeup of the motion in question? Richard, is it your intent to have the planning director before removal , get approval from the council? -25- MR. ISHIDA: Yes , I was going to bring that up later, but, since it is brought up. . .my recommendation, my feeling is that any removal of the planning director should not get the council approval. If the mayor feels that the planning director should be removed, I believe, that should be his discretion. I believe, however, his appointment should be confirmed. MR. OMONAKA: is this part of the intent on the motion on this? MR. ISHIDA: If the second will go along, I would like that to be my intent. MR. CADINHA: Can we have discussion? If we are going to redraft the whole thing, can we reconsider Fish ' s motion and incorporate into Chapter 4 the same thing? MR. ODA: - May I suggest that perhaps that portion of the first .sentence-of Section 5-4.2 be acted upon, separately, so that that can -be done. So that when I do make a proposed revision, that can also be reworded, too. MR. ISHIDA: Was that the one on the approval or the confirmation matter? What was the language we used? MR. CADINHA: Appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. MR. ODA: Appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor. MR. ISHIDA: May I make another motion, now? Is it proper? MR. ODA: Why don ' t you amend your motion. MR. ISHIDA: Amend the motion? Second, would you go along with my amendment. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Yes. MR. ISHIDA: So that the first sentence =of Section 5-4.2 will read as follows: "The planning director shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor. " All other excess words included in that first sentence should be deleted. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any further discussion on this? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 5-4. 2 with the wording to be, "The planning director shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the council and may be removed by the mayor. " (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) -26- MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. You know, we deferred several sections of the charter. Is it proper for me to ask when these things will be brought up again? Are we going to give counsel a deadline? MR. ODA: May I? According to the directions that I got, Section 3-6 on the impeachment is to be deferred until the recall is discussed. So there is no time limit '-on that. The matter of removal of the mayor, Section 5-1. 7 is deferred until recall. The matter of Chapter 2, Corporation Counsel was deferred indefinitely, until the matter of special counsel to the county council is discussed. And the pension board was deferred, but that is left up in. the air, I don ' t know. . MR. OMONAKA: I think we can check with Rudy on that. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman, are we going to entertain the rest of this motion, or the original motion? Right now, we just passed 5-4.2, right? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is still up on 5-4.3 and 5-4.4. Right? MR. ISHIDA: I thought it was all inclusive. That was my intention. MR. CADINHA: Is research and development in your motion? MR. ISHIDA: No, it is not. MR. CADINHA: I would like to move that we decide whether we are going to incorporate the two departments. If so, then that also be taken into consideration when drafting Chapter 4. I would like to move that we incorporate both departments. We already have a motion that was seconded, don ' t we? I make a motion to reconsider then. The point being if you are going to redraft the whole chapter, it would be wise to know whether we are going to do this, so we can insert the appropriate functions in the appropriate place in the redrafting. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion on it? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Speaking against the motion to reconsider and the motion to defer. What I had in mind, was to have at least somebody from the department to come up again. I would like to hear from them because since the last time we heard testimony, I have heard more from different people who say that these two departments are very separate and they should not be merged. It is pretty hard for a planning director to become the head of research and develop- ment because he may have some strong conflicts in his duties as a planning director. I would like to speak against the motion and I would like to request that we defer until the next meeting when we can invite Sidney Fuke and somebody from R & D department. -27- MR. ISHIDA: I ' ll go along with that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The motion is on the floor that we. . . MR. CADINHA: i withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will have someone from the planning department and research and development scheduled for next week, if possible. CHAPTER 6 We are going into Chapter 6, Miscellaneous. SECTION Clerical Pool. 5-6.1 MR. OMONAKA: I move for acceptance. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any second? MR. ISHIDA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any discussion? MRS. IWAMOTO: There was mention of this satellite office? It should be in Chapter 6 somewhere. MR. ODA: It can be put in any other place, even under the mayor' s section. MR. CADINHA: Under the mayor, though, we have already approved that he can appoint necessary staff for which appropriations have been made by the council. In fact, right now, Kona has a satellite office and I think the budget was approved for another assistant mayor of some sort. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Are you ready for the question? Any other discussion on this? It has been moved and seconded that we adopt Section 5-6. 1 without any revisions. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) SECTION Let' s go to Section 5-6. 2. Safety Coordinator. 5-6. 2 ... MR. ISHIDA: It ' s just an arm of the mayor. It ' s not a department head or anything like that. MR. OMONAKA: It ' s a staff to the mayor. The same like the other departments. MR. ISHIDA: We are not elevating anyone, right? The only thing is, like in 5-6. 1 , _it;says, "The clerical pool shall be attached to the mayor ' s office for purposes of adminis- tration, " or whatnot, and so on. There is nothing like that in the safety coordinator. Do you think something like that should be put in? MR. OMONAKA: I think the first paragraph pretty much covers that. He just answers to the mayor, period. -28- MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t think it is necessary to put that in the charter, that safety coordinator. There must have been some significance to that. MR. OMONAKA: Like any other staff agencies. MRS. IWAMOTO: I have a little note on this, if I recall . I think the safety coordinator mentioned ( f) "Perform such other duties as may be requested by the mayor. " He also wanted the words "representatives from the different departments. " By the mayor and representatives from the other departments. MR. ISHIDA: All such requests should go through the mayor before they go to the coordinator, though. MRS. IWAMOTO: Yes. :._CHAIRMAN SAKATA: If it goes through the mayor then , Richard, I don ' t think we will have to change the language. MR. ISHIDA: Yes., then I don ' t think we will have to. MRS. IWAMOTO: Mr. Chairman. I move that we leave Section 5-6. 2 as is. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on this? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 5-6.2 as it is. Any discussion? If not, are you ready for the question? It has been moved and seconded that we approve Section 5-6. 2 as it is. (A roll call vote was taken and the motion was carried. ) MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Under Chapter 6, When you look in the parks and recreation , the county band is under parks and recreation. Should that be there or should it be under Where the safety coordinator is? Are they not similar. MR. OMONAKA: In terms of the band, that is kind of associated with the parks and recreation in terms of band requirement requests and things like that so they have to funnel it through one department anyway. . .if you want the band to participate in a graduation or a parade. It can be changed. MR. ISHIDA: I don ' t know who the bandmaster is accountable to. Directly to the managing director? -29- MR. OMONAKA: The mayor. MRS. KOBAYASHI : He is appointed by the mayor. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Appointed and can be removed by the mayor. MR. ISHIDA: If it is directly to the mayor, then I think it should come under miscellaneous. There may have been reasons for putting it under the parks and recreation. MR. YANAGA: .That' swhat it means, right? For administrative purposes. MR. ISHIDA: It makes no difference, as I gather, right? MR. OMONAKA: It ' s working out like this. MR. ISHIDA: It ' s working out okay. I withdraw everything I just said. MR. OMONAKA: I move for adjournment. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Before we adjourn, I want to make the announcement that the subcommittee will meet at 3 o'clock here in the councilroom. Then on July 10th, Mr: Tamashiro will be with us to inform us of the election processes. ANNOUNCEMENTS : Next meeting date Charter Commission, , June 12, 1979, at 4: 30 p.m. , Hawaii County Councilroom. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. 411, ,oan Carnett 'ECORDING SECRETARY -30-