Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-07-25a HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 28th Session July 25 , 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The twenty-eighth session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 3 : 35 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii by Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte, Vice-Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Harlan Cadinha Mr. Richard Ishida Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira Omonaka Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte Mr. Herman Sensano Mr. Joseph Trulson Mr. Matsuo Yanaga c eeti rn 2 s . !l CRY / xi 076 /1712. /3 asp I (, (/a 6 a ' Absent Mr. Kimiaki Sakata and Excused: Also Mr. Stephen Yamashiro, Present : Chairman, County Council Mr. Bill Kikuchi , The Kikuchi Group Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Ms. Frances Higa, Research Assistant Mrs. Joan Carnett, Secretary CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: The twenty-eighth session of the Charter Commission shall now come to order. Will the record show that in the absence of Chairman Sakata, Vice-Chairman Kalani Schutte is now presiding. . We do have two guests this afternoon. One is Steve Yamashiro who would like to say a few words and one is Bill Kikuchi who will relate to the advertisement of the changes of the charter that we have worked on. Will someone make a move to suspend the rules of procedure so we may receive this testimony? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman, I move that we suspend our rules so that we can have our two guests present their presentations. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Is there a second? MR. SENSANO: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It has been moved and seconded that we suspend the rules of procedure and receive testimony from our guests. All in favor? Motion is carried. Mr. Yamashiro. . . MR. YAMASHIRO: If you would like to see the slide presentation first, it would be fine with me, in case you might :want to have some discussion on my comments. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: All right, that would be fine. Bill would you want to proceed. MR. KIKUCHI : This is a slide presentation .developed for voter registration. What I was discussing with one of your commission members is the potential possibility of developing an educatiorial audio-visual development for the charter amendments to be utilized at different meetings or whatever the requests may be. It' s about 20 minutes long. ( Slide presentation at this time. ) Thank you, unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Gloria, would you like to take the floor at this time and discuss this a little bit more? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman, I asked Mr. Kikuchi if he would present his slide presentation with the idea that a similar presentation could be made on the charter amendments once we get into the ballot format.- I think audio-visual is a much better way to present things to an audience. Say, we were going to speak to a dinner group or to some kind of an organization meeting and I guess many of us will be having to do that as we go out getting the charter amendments before the people. I can 't see standing up and just talking so my p just feeling was that a slide presentation w0"4d be a good way to intfoduce the charter amendments and later on, whoever is using it could answer questions. Part of the problem is I don ' t really know what the budget is but I thought that if we looked into the possibility of having something like this created for us it would really help us in the long run when we will be asked to be speaking to various groups. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Gloria, have you any idea how often this would be used in speaking to various groups? MRS. KOBAYASHI : I don ' t know what the interest will be. I know we have already gotten one invitation and this is only July. It would seem to me as part of publicizing the -2- charter amendments we will need to--I can see it as being towards the end being used as frequently as every day depending on what the interest is. MR. KIKUCHI : One thing you might consider for the dissemination of the audio-visual is cable television which has public access channels for the island. Some of the advantages of it is like if various people from your commission will be presenting at these meetings or these functions where you may be asked to make a presentation on your commission ' s proposed amendments, at least the message would be consistent. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. What would be the cost in terms of developing a program such as this? MR. KIKUCHI : I told Gloria that I would have to look at what the narrative content would be. Like review what some of the proposed changes are and see what is going to be incorporated in a slide presentation. How much detail do you want to go into? Because, obviously, it ' s hard to hold the attention of the people for more than 15 to 20 minutes in an audio-visual presentation. Unless I can see like a specim6n ballot or some narrative on what the proposals are then I could pretty much give you a summation of that. The equipment that was utilized today is owned by the elections division and that program, I think , cost them about $4,000. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Including the equipment? MR. KIKUCHI : Including the equipment. MR. OMONAKA: How long would it take to develop a program which can presented? MR. KIKUCHI : What usually takes the longest is trying to decide what is going into the narrative. How much detail you want in the narrative. If, with- the cooperation of the Charter Commission, you can expedite it, maybe a couple weeks , then the rest is just visual development and mechanical organization of the developments. So you are probably talking of, if it ' s a total effort by everybody, you could probably do it ins about 45 days. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Are there any other questions thecommissionmay want to ask of Mr. Kikuchi? Bill , all I can say is thank you, unless you have something else that you would like to offer. I think this commission will take it under advisement and decide later on as to what they will be able to do. Thank you very much for coming. MR. KIKUCHI : Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : We' ll call on Council Chairman Steve Yamashiro. -3- 1 MR. YAMASHIRO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the commission. Before I make my presentation, I would like to state that this is on my own behalf. we have circulated it but it is not the decision of the majority of the council. The action of the Charter Commission in proposing that the Hawaii County Council be made up of 9 members elected out of single member districts for 2-year terms is a disaster to orderly local government. In one fell swoop the commission has destroyed the good work it has done in creating an adequate system of checks and balances within our county government. As proposed , 9 single member districts can only result in a provincial body concerned with representative districts first and the whole county secondarily. Because of the very size and diverse nature of our island, the separation of individual districts will only further stress the differences between East and West, the populated vs unpopulated, rural vs urban , developed vs developing areas of our county. A councilman from the developed Hilo areas may not be as sympathetic to fire protection in Pahoa or Ka'u. His interest may lean towards park or recreational facilities or road maintenance. CIP moneys will no longer be apportioned on what is in the best interest of the county, but making sure the members of the council have projects in their district which they can point to. A return to the pork barrel cannot be in the best interest of this county. Under the present system, or with one ,caLiing for anumber of at-large candidates, those who are responsible to all the voters on the island will think in an islandwide perspective. As an example, if we were solely responsible to the Hilo area, this just passed budget would not reflect 30 new police positions for Kona, new fire positions for Pahoa or North Hilo. It is only because the council is accountable to all the people of this county that the islandwide needs prevail over provincial district demands. We must never forget that elected officials are accountable to the electorate. The broader this body is, the broader must be the thinking of the person in office. The question of representation will always persist. Even within the Kona district, there is no unity of thought between mauka and makai. The real test of a voter' s input into a representative government is how many people he has the opportunity to vote for within the decision making body. It is only the people you have an opportunity of voting for that you can hold accountable for actions at the next election. Under the present system, all members of the county council are elected by all the voters of this county and as such they are accountable for their actions to all voters. The action of the council in responding to the needs of the county speak louder than any words. There has been no pork barreling of projects into separate representative districts because the whole county is one district. All the projects are in the district which votes for all the councilmen . One of the biggest concerns has been responsibility and accountability to the electorate. We feel the greater the electorate, the greater -4- the responsibility and accountability. Under the present system, no councilman can ignore any one part of the island for he must return there ultimately and ask those people for support in his re-election. The most significant impact of this proposal is to destroy all the good work that this body has done in balancing the power and roles between the legislative and administrative branches of our county government. With 9 individual districts having 2-year terms, there is no single member of the county council that can stand up to the mayor within the first two years of the mayor' s term. While the council is faced with a mid-term election, the mayor need not run for re-election at this time and his ability to withhold spending, to transfer funds , or direct moneys into various districts will have an important effect on the actions of the county council. This power will nullify the council ' s role as an equal partner, serving as a check on the mayor in the governance of this county. A similar situation was faced by the Constitutional Convention in its last sitting in 1978. As a result, the terms of the senators were staggered so as to remove the inequity of power between the respective houses. The convention found that under the system where all senators were elected to 4-year terms, with terms all ending at the same time, the Senate could wield an inordinate amount of power in dealing with members of theHouse who must run every two years and were under greater election pressures in the interim. Because they did not have to run for re-election , the senators were able to stand fast on certain issues in disputes between the Senate and House, and to resort. . .excuse me, that should be resist. . .and to resist compromises. Under the present situation proposed , the mayor and the council could come to a dispute on: an item or program. The mayor could simply withhold the spending for this project or not seek capital improvements in certain council districts , thereby punishing a councilman for his failure to yield to the mayor' s prerogatives. Under our present situation the terms of the mayor and the council are coterminous. There is no advantage to either party because both seek re-election at the same time. These practical problems are things that must be faced by you, the Charter Commission. The Charter Commission was selected to make changes where needed in our existingcharter. You are selected for your ability to make hard decisions where hard decisions are necessary for the benefit of all the people of our county. I do not feel that it is appropriate that the Charter Commission abdicate this decision making prerogative by yielding to choices on the ballot. If alternatives are to be offered , however, I suggest the Charter Commission also put on the ballot a 9 member council which would allow 5 councilmen out of 5 individual representative districts and 4 at-large. Each councilman would have a 4-year term with the 5 initial district members running for a 2-year term and a 4-year term "commencing in 1982. This would seem to be an additional compromise -5- between the two proposals already on the ballot and the existing situation. Those who demand direct district representation would have the accountability of one member on the county council. In addition to this one member, they would have the ability to vote on four other people who would be accountable to them in their actions. This would give each district on the island the ability to vote for 5 council members. I thank you, at this time, for allowing me to make this presentation. As an aside, we do feel the serious inequity is the trend towards provincial thought and the inequity of power between the mayor and the council for us to respond adequately to check them. When I talk about provincial thought, and I would mention the last budget, if, for instance, as of this time we were looking at running next year out of representative districts, in this year' s county council CIP budget of $9 million dollars, $5 million is going to West Hawaii. The majority of the council is not comprised of people from West Hawaii and if we are to look at running out of districts on this side of the island, then we would seriously consider bringing projects back on this side because we have neglected the 2nd district because they are fully developed. There are great needs for improvements in Kona. They need the new police station, the Kuakini -realignment. These things are imperative for the orderly development of the whole island. That ' s why I say, when the county council is responsible for the whole island, there cannot be this provincial thinking. I cannot say;. I am going to run out of 2-A here, I want to pave Ainalako Road because that ' s where I 'm going to get the votes and' I don' t care about Kuakini. . .I don ' t need that police station in Kailua because they're not going to vote for me anyway. I think this is the thing that has to be faced when you talk about 9 individual districts which are only accountable for the people in that district. Because once five people put together a majority with short terms and very limited moneys, only the people in power will be allowed to share in the fruits of any projects or capital improvements that may be available. I think this is presently stopped because we cannot think of any one area, we have to think of the whole area. I may not agree with Counciman Sameshima, but I was one of the people who advanced the idea of the $2 million dollar water line for Lalamilo because it ' s in the best- interest of this whole county. But if I was running out of district 2-A, I could not see spending $2 million dollars unless there was some corresponding quid pro quo for my district. And that is the other thing that we will lean towards log rolling and swapping of projects. Right now we can put 30 policemen in Kona in one budget session without everyone saying, well, I 'm putting 30 into Kona,-„ v/hat- is- "Kona _going to give,.me for Hilo?, Or what is going to go into Laupahoehoe or what is going into Pahoa? We saw the need, the council perceived the need for police protection in the West Hawaii area and they acted on_ it. -6- There was no bargaining as such that if you want 30 policemen or the police station, there has to be a corresponding set-off or gainer-I 'm going to have, to have something in East Hawaii. So I think it is with very serious consideration that I bring these things to you. I think you have done a fine job in balancing the power and that ' s the next thing between the mayor and the council. You people have taken action to strengthen the council to be able to act as a better- check and - balance on the administration. But now if we do not have the ability to stand toe to toe with them and we have to run for interim elections, you have wiped all that out. So I would strongly suggest that this commission reconsider its position with regards to the 9 individual districts. I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the people of this county. If people do demand a direct representation , there should be an overriding amount of at-large candidates to balance the district candidates so there will not be a suffering on one side of the island because of a lack of participation or a lack of cooperation from a member from that area. If anyone has any questions, I will be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Any questions from the commission members? Mr. Yamashiro, , you are against the 9 members elected out of single member districts? MR. YAMASHIRO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : You also are against the 2-year terms?. MR. YAMASHIRO: If it is 9 single members, I would suggest for the sake of balancing the power between the districts and the mayor, that the districts be given 4-year terms. Either that, or the other alternative is to reduce the term of the mayor to two years. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : What if with the 9 member districts that they add staggered terms of four and two years , -then _what? MR. YAMASHIRO: How would you select the four and two? That would be the problem. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: The four would be the one getting the largest vote in that particular district would take the 4-year term and the 2-year term could be the individual with the lower vote. MR. YAMASHIRO: Would they then have a two year. . . what I am trying to say .,is at. the next election, would the one having the 2-year term run for a 4-year term so you would have a true stagger? -7- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : No, I think at the following election you would have the one who could run again for a 4-year term and the other one would run for 2-years. MR. YAMASHIRO: Let me get this straight then. If the one having a 4-year term is defeated in the next election, the person who defeats him will take the 4-year term? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: As a matter of objectivity, I would believe that could be done, yes. MR. YAMASHIRO: The problem I see there is , the person running for a 2-year term will also be running at the same time that the 4-year term person is running. Who would get the 4-year term? Every two elections everybody would run. So, who would get the 4-year term and who would get the 2-year term would be the problem. I could see if you say that they will all have 4-year terms. The people with the highest vote will have the initial 4-year term. The other people have to run in two years but they will then have a 4-year term so then you have a staggered situation where half of the people come up for election every two years. What you have proposed, I believe, is half the people come up for election every two years and everybody comes up for election every four years. . .which would lead to some confusion in my mind as to who gets the 4-year term. But, I think, Mr. Schutte, besides the terms, the real problem is the thought that would have to be the concerns of the island. If you are in a homogenous situation where basically it were all developed and we are just talking about splitting up who gets the park , or who gets the police sub- station, or something. But we are on an island that is as complex and diverse as the whole State. We have areas that are urban, we have areas that need paved roads, and it is the necessity to balance those needs that is going to face the county council. If people are not faced with the accountability to these problems then they are only going to be concerned with their own bailiwick. I know it has been brought up that we are elected to represent the whole island. We may be represented out of a district but as a practical matter, that ' s true. We will think of the whole island. But, when it comes in terms of the whole island of my district and I 've got to go back to that district and run for re-election, something' s got to give. weare constantlyfaced with the problem of If taking things back to our district then the lesser developed areas of our county will suffer. They will have to wait a longer period_of_t.ime because of the need for the individual representative to go back to his district to show something. -8- Say, if I ran in the 2nd district, next year, what can I show? That I put a water line into Kona? We voted for the Kuakini realignment? Or the Kealakehe overpass? Or the Kailua police station? Or 30 new police positions in Kona? Nobody in the 2nd district cares. They want Ainalako Road paved. They want the University Heights Park. .But those things we put aside because we see other priorities and other needs. This is the most important philosophical thing I think you people will have to face. How to make the council responsive to the whole island as a whole, first, not just to their representative district. Our present situation , I think , is good, because the council has to think of the island, as a whole, first, and their district secondarily. Because _they=are _accountable and have -_to- run on an islancwide basis. If you look at our present council makeup, like as I said before, there would be nothing in West Hawaii. Simply because the majority does not come from West Hawaii. Because of our accountability to West Hawaii , we have seen to it that the bulk of the CIP and the needed services have gone into the rural areas. We've constantly made as one of our goals, the expansion of the police and fire in the rural districts. And we can do this as a body because we are accountable to the whole county. If we were just accountable to our own individual districts, I do not see how that could possibly prevail . CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Steve, do you feel that the present council makeup is satisfactory? MR. YAMASHIRO: I think it is. I think it is probably the best compromise you can have. The next compromise I would suggest, is if people want direct district representation, then 5 people but you have to have a large number of at-large candidates to balance off so no one district can prevail , or no districts can gang up and leave one district out. Under a 5-2 situation you could, theoretically, get three districts together and one at-large candidate, or two at-large candidates, and a district, and leave it out. I would think the at-large candidates would be very hesitant to leave any one area of the island out. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yamashiro, in your proposal , you are suggesting to the commission for a 9 member council which would allow 5 councilmen out of individual representative districts and 4 at-large? MR. YAMASHIRO: That ' s correct. MR. SENSANO: What would be your thinking of designating the 4 at-large that you are proposing being given requirement fora=district for a residency requirement? Say, dividing the island into two and requiring two of the four to have a residency requirement on one part of the island and the other tWo,:.on -the _other___pa.rt of the island? -9- MR. YAMASHIRO: I do not see any purpose for that if we are having a combination of district and at-large. Because the reason for the residency requirement was to satisfy the need for some sort of district representation. If we are going to allow for direct district representation then I think the at-large candidates should be true at-large candidates so the four best people on the island, no matter where they reside, can be chosen. MR. SENSANO: Don ' t you think that if we require residency requirements for the four at-large candidates but are elected islandw&cl_e,, that would sort of be an inbetween compromise between the strictly 9 district and this proposal of yours? MR. YAMASHIRO: I think the compromise. . .yes, that_ _could be. What I was saying is I don ' t see the need: If you are going to have at-large candidates, truly at-large candidates, you want the four best people on the island. So I think that is why we have district representation out of five direct representative_districts and where theother__ four live should not make a difference. Because they will be accountable to the whole island. I think, like I said, the reason for the district representation under our present system was to meet the need for some sort of direct district contact. But we have that where you have one person being directly elected out of a district. It could be put in but I would not see any purpose for it. I think the basic concern is the philosophical problem that faces this body is how best to govern this island? How best to provide to meet the needs of the people and if we are going to have a truly check and balance type system between the mayor and the legislative body, they should be put on adequate footing. I think where, like I 've said before, where you 're accountable the elected officials go to their constituency, and the broader that constituency is, the more accountable you have to be. As a practical matter, if you 're only campaigning out of one area you tend to concentrate in that area. I think we run a severe risk of going backwards by adopting this situation. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yamashiro, on that four at-large, you made the statement that "the four best people. " What makes you think the four best people will get elected at-large? What are the possibilities of getting these four people being elected from the heavier population areas than the other areas? MR. YAMASHIRO: The population , Mr. Omonaka, will always prevail. That ' s because of the supreme court decision mandating one-man, one-vote. MR. OMONAKA: You made the statement to say that the four best people would be elected. This is not necessarily true. -10- MR. YAMASHIRO: I think it is. Because if you don 't have any district representative if the four best people that win the support of all the people of this island happen to be in one district, be it the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, those four people with no artificial barriers have been selected. That ' s what I 'msaying. If we are having true at-large representation, let us not set up any artificial barriers. Let the four people who get the best votes, who are selected by the people of this county prevail , wherever they live. MR. OMONAKA: If you are living in the rural area:and if you don ' t have a business to fall to or a good law practice to follow through, it ' s pretty hard for you to run. If you're a businessman in a centrally populated area, your chances of running for politics would be greater than someone from in the rural areas. So that does not necessarily mean the best guys will be running for office. MR. YAMASHIRO: The best people that appear on the ballot will be selected. MR. OMONAKA: Not your statement, the best people will get elected. . . MR. YAMASHIRO: No, the best people that offer themselves for election. MR. OMONAKA: This would preclude a lot of people from the rural areas if they feel they can ' t lean on their business to support them to run. . . MR. YAMASHIRO: I don ' t think any of us can afford to, Mr. Omonaka. You can look at what sacrifices have been made. I think I 'm the only one with a $1 ,500 part-time job that ' s costing me $3,000 to maintain. We all make sacrifices but that ' s the determination of the individual. If he wants to make public service his life, he has to make that choice. And whatever reason he does it for, his ego, his self-satisfaction, that ' s his choice. The thing is , we're trying to make this system accountable to as many people. . .to be as broadly repre- sentative as possible. MR. OMONAKA: So, Mr. Yamashiro, then , if I really was concerned with county government, which is closest to the people, it should be easiest for the guy to participate and we should make it so that everybody gets a relatively even chance whenever they run for any office. MR. YAMASHIRO: Mr. Omonaka, I think everyone has an even chance. If you have 5 representative districts, everyone will have a chance. They can make that selection or they can make it. . . MR. OMONAKA: You're talking about sacrifices and things like that. Some people living in a certain area will have ace=xtain advantage,- this is what I 'm talking about. People running at-large, if you come from a heavier population the advantages will be there. -11- MR. YAMASHIRO: There is always that advantage. MR. OMONAKA: That ' s the point I 'm getting at. MR. YAMASHIRO: But the thing is we' re trying to balance off the election of people with what is good for the whole county. The ease of election does not necessarily make it in the best interest of the whole county. We can look at the situation. If the present situation was a 9 member represent- ative district there would be nothing in Mr. Schutte' s district, there would be nothing in Mr. Ishida',s district, there would be nothing in Mr. Cadinha' s district; because they are not part of the majority. That ' s what we are saying. To preclude that type of situation in our county because of our diverse nature we have to have some balance. Anyone that wants to run, can run. I think we've seen people run like Mr. Levin who took off on his own, or Archie Hapai. The people that want to run will run and can be elected. I think with the campaign spending law that has come into effect, they will get funding. It ' s a matter of sacrifice or making the determination of what they want to do. But I think besides the ease of election we have to look at what is in the best interest of this county. Is it really the best interest to emphasize the diverse nature? MR. OMONAKA: If you were elected from a single member district, would you have voted for the example, the Kona needs? MR. YAMASHIRO: =Depending upon what was in my district. I can honestly say we'd have to trade off. I 'd trade for that. MR. OMONAKA: So you would do that? MR. YAMASHIRO: That ' s correct. MR. OMONAKA: Okay. Very good. MR. YAMASHIRO: I 'd have to take care of my district. I would have to make sure that my district was represented. MR. OMONAKA: One more question. Did you not make the statement that the present council setup is good? MR. YAMASHIRO: I think that opposed to anything that is presently on the ballot it is a better system. MR. OMONAKA: Are you aware then that there are three propositions on the ballot as the commission now has adopted and one of those will be the present setup? MR. YAMASHIRO: Correct. But what I was suggesting is that this commission was selected to make decisions. Make hard decisions. -12- MR. OMONAKA: We have. MR. YAMASHIRO: So they should analyze their decisions on the basis of what is really of the best interests and make the decision. Perhaps the decision should be no change. MR. OMONAKA: Well , it ' s there on the ballot as far as the council makeup is concerned. MR. YAMASHIRO: If you are going to propose two other proposals, put a third one on for 5-4. MR. OMONAKA: The third one will be the status-quo. MR. YAMASHIRO: Another third one for 5-4, so you have four propositions on the ballot. That gives you more opportunity for local participation as opposed to 5-2. If you are concerned about broader citizen participation , we increase the number of officeholders. MR. OMONAKA: I have no more questions. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yamashiro, I think I heard you correctly when you said that the best candidates may not be from the less densely populated districts. By the best, do you mean that the candidates who will get the most votes and get elected. . .in your mind, does the fact that the person gets enough votes to be elected signify that he is the best qualified candidate? MR. YAMASHIRO: The best candidate is the one that the people-feel-sri best represent them and is elected and, Mr. Sensano, to answer your questions about rural areas, if we look at the voter turnout or the votes received by Takashi Domingo out of Honokaa in that last election, I think he exceeded my vote total running atL-large and he may have exceeded, , many of the other vote totals for people out of this Hilo district. So when you say that rural candidates will not have an. opportunity, I do not think that is quite true. Rural candidates will have to work . We all have to work . But the opportunities are there for the people that want to go out and make the sacrifice. We are not trying to discriminate against any one situation. What we are saying, is when you have 9 single member districts that is not the best system. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Any further comments? Thank you very much, Chairman Yamashiro. MR. YAMASHIRO: Thank you. RECESS: At 4: 30 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RE- CONUENE.:° , At 4: 45 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. -13- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : This meeting is now reconvened. Are there any comments on the presentation by Bill Kikuchi that the members may want to deliberate on? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman , can we refer this for formal action at the next meeting and make it part of our agenda? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Yes, I am quite sure it can be referred to our next meeting. The record will so show that. Any comments on Chairman Yamashiro' s text? If there are no comments we will go on. APPROVAL The Chair called for the approval of minutes dated OF July 11 , 1979 with the following correction : MINUTES: Page 43. . .8th paragraph Statement made by Mrs. Iwamoto should read. . .I think we did. Motion was made by Mr. Trulson to approve minutes Ss corrected. Seconded by Mrs. Kobayashi and unanimously carried. COMMUNI- The following communications were considered : CATIONS: Comm. 80 : Letter from The Exchange Club of Waiakea, dated July 17, 1979, inviting commission member as luncheon speaker. Comm. 81 : Letter from Ginny Aste, Committee on the Status of Women requesting charter amendment. Comm. 82 : Statement submitted by Herman Sensano, Charter Review Commission member, dated July 18, 1979 on makeup of County Council. Motion was made to receive and file Communications #80 through #82 by Mrs. Iwamoto. Seconded by Mr. Trulson and unanimously carried. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to make one announcement regarding Communication #80. A speaker has been appointed to speak at The Exchange Club. So that part has been taken care of. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: May the record show who the speaker is.? MR. TRULSON:Commissioner Trulson will be the speaker. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : The record shall so indicate that Commissioner Trulson will take care of Communication #80. -14- MR. TRULSON: And also let the record show, I did not volunteer. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It shall so show. ARTICLE III , SECTION 3-2_: MR. TRULSON : Mr. Chairman. Over the last few weeks and months we have heard rhetoric on the proposals in the charter. I 'm referring specifically to the makeup of the county council. The mayor has come out in favor of a 5-4, or a 9 man council. Mr. Yamashiro, today, was in favor of a 9 man council. We've had input from various people throughout the island, including Kona, in favor of a 5-4, or some at-large councilmen. There are a great number of commissioners here in favor of a 5-4 and some 5-4 proposals have been submitted prior to today. I would like to make a motion to amend Article III , Section 3-2 to give another option to the voters. That would be a 5-4 council makeup. Five councilmen from the four representative districts, one from districts #1, #3 , #4. . .two from district #2, to be elected for 2-year terms, and four councilmen at-large. They would be 4-year terms. MR. ISHIDA: i ' ll second the motion . CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : It has been moved and seconded that another option be placed on the ballot and that it should read. . .Five councilmen shall be elected from districts and four councilmen at-large. MR. TRULSON: The five councilmen will be from the four representative districts for 2-year terms. Four council- men at-large for 4-year terms. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Five councilmen from four districts for 2-year terms and four councilmen at-large for 4-year terms. It has been so moved and seconded. Is there any discussion' on the motion? MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. I 'd like to just voice my personal feelings about this and I largely reflect the sentiments of Mr. Trulson. Getting back to the night we voted on the initial 5-2 alternative on the ballot, the vote was very, very close. It was tied and there was about a two minute deliberation, or something to that effect, on the part of the chairman and he went to a 5-2. I think the alternative votes were in favor of a 5-4 and i strongly make an appeal to this commission to consider throwing ,that alternative out to the people. As Mr. Trulson has mentioned, the mayor has always recommended -15- this as his basic first choice in terms of recommendation. We've heard from the council chairman. I don ' t think we can ignore this sentiment. This is a very difficult issue. Redistricting is a tough situation to begin with. Nobody comes off happy but I think we have to set aside our personal feelings and since we're going to the voters on it, I think we have to give them all the; alternatives. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Could I ask legal counsel a question ;regarding; the ballot design? Is it going to be. . .I suppose anything is possible, isn ' t it? Can you put this option. . .are you going to be able to put a fourth option on the ballot? I 'm lookinglat the handout you gave us on the ballot wording on ;county council and I just want to check to see if you think an option #3 would be possible. MR. ODA: Basically, ballot preparation is not my expertise but I assume anything can be put on the ballot. The problem comes up, I think , in how to devise the wording so that, I think there was some concern expressed by somebody about if you have the initial question are you in favor of an amendment and if you vote no, should you be given an option of voting on the options? Or are you prevented from voting on the options? The way it' s presently worded you don ' t go down and vote for any options tolamend once you vote no. So far as putting another option on, is that your question? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Yes, is it. . .you can do it? MR. ODA: Yes, I suppose it can be done. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. With the 5-4 makeup of the council as I proposed, each district will have a majority vote, or they' ll have voted 'Ifor a majority of the council members. They' ll have voted for four at-large and at least one from their district. District #2 will have voted for six. But each district will haveivoted for at least five which is a majority. So each personiwho votes can state that they are going for a majority of thelcouncil. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : i, Any further discussion? Mr. Sensano? MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Under this proposal , would there be a need for redistricting for the five seats, district seats? MR. TRULSON: I believe we've already set up a reapportionment in 1983. So however that goes, of course, I guess_, willaffect it. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Mr. Sensano, are you referring to the four representative districts as they exist today? MR. SENSANO: Yes. -16- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Mr. Trulson , I presume that you 're referring to those four districts , also? MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Just to make sure that action taken on this motion will be in order, I 'd like to ask whether this motion is in order. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : IAre you calling for a point of order? MR. SENSANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: We have initially suspended the rules of procedure prior to receiving testimony from Mr. Yamashiro and Mr. Kikuchi and if you refer back to the rules of procedure, I believe the motion at this time is in order. MR. SENSANO: I just wanted to make sure that whatever action we take would be in order, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Sensano. I believe we are in order. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. According to Robert ' s we are in order. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: My point of order was being the rules of procedure as adopted by this commission. We have suspended these rules of procedure prior to taking testimony and because of that suspension of these rules, your motion is in order and I 'm ruling on ghat point of order. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I 'd just like to make a brief statement. It has always, of course, been my position that a 5-4 apportionment would be best where this county is concerned. I don ' t want toljust reiterate what I earlier said but I think what was covered by Council Chairman Yamashiro also represents my views sohjust for the record I 'd like to indicate that I just reiterate what has already been said by me and incorporate it right now in behalf of this motion. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Any further discussion? MRS. IWAMOTO: Mr: Chairman. After all of the months of listening and learning about our county government, I feel that what Mr. Trulson has proposed is a compromise of all the alternatives. It ' s a good one so I ' ll go along with what he has said, proposed today. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: You are speaking in favor of the motion then? MRS. IWAMOTO: Yet. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Is there any other discussion? -17- Call for the question. The intent of this motion is that another option be placed on the ballot which would have five district councilmen elected for 2-year terms and four councilmen will be elected at-large for 4-year terms. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. Before you call for a vote on the motion, I 'd like to read what Chairman Yamashiro said in his statement. "I do not feel that it is. . . ( I 'm readng on page number. . .the second to last page,..beginning the last sentence which starts--I 'm starting on this page) . . . "I do not feel that it is appropriate that the Charter Commission abdicate this decision making prerogative by yielding to choices on the ballot. " MR. CADINHA: In response, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Mr. Cadinha. MR. CADINHA: This commission already has abdicated and p'a'rtial abdication is probably even worse. So, I 'd say let ' s open it up to the people. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Any further discussion? MR. SENSANO: Question. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - Yanaga, Yagong, Iwamoto, Ishida, Omonaka Trulson, Sensano, - 3 Schutte - 7 Absent - Sakata - 1 Carried. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Mr. Omonaka MR. OMONAKA: The last proposal that we acted upon , would you consider that as a final draft? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Which proposal is that? MR. OMONAKA: The document that has been enacted upon by the commission in the last meeting which has been prepared by Mr. Oda. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : No, according to our time schedule I would assume that that is still a tentative draft. The final draft being somewhere in August, I believe. Excuse me, Stuart. MR. TRULSON: According to our schedule, Mr. Chairman , August 7 was the finalized draft. -18- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Yes, going by the calendar that we have set up or proposed , it appears that we are still under review, Mr. Omonaka. There has been one suggestion and this is Communication #83. However, it is not on the agenda but it was designated for next week ' s agenda. This is in regards to deleting the sewerage system from the Department of Water Supply, however, retaining everything else. Just deleting the sewerage language from the section that deals with the Department of Water Supply. CHAPTER 6' SECTION 5-6.3: Under proposed Chapter 6, Department of Water Supply Section 5-6.3. This is found in the bottom section of paragraph (c) . It says. . .In addition, all water and sanitary sewerage systems of the county. . . A request, or the suggestion , is that. . .add sanitary sewerage language but where any part within this section that refers to the sewerage system be deleted and it be left as it is with the Department of Public Works and at the discretion of the mayor or the council through ordinance as to where or how it should be operated. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Are you suggesting that we act on the communication at this meeting? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : I just brought it up. If it is at all possible. MR. OMONAKA: I believe it can be done. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : There seems to be very few other items to be changed, or just language. We might be able to move along a little quicker. Stuart, have you any suggestions? MR. ODA: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a motion to amend that proposal. It can be made. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : All right, may I have a motion to amend this particular section and that is to delete the sewerage language from the Department of Water Supply? MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Just let me add a little something to what Mr. Harada is saying. He talked to me one day after this had passed and apparently the current sewerage function in the county, as it operates today, is in basically a deficit, or red ink, position. They use money from the general fund to keep this thing running. His concern was also that if you put it under the Board of Water Supply where they are challenged with the revenues of the water system, it ' s difficult to turn around and help the sewerage function and perhaps there could be a slight financial wrinkle in here that they may have to pass some ordinances for. He didn ' t really make mention of that in his correspondence, I just thought I ' d add that other concern that he mentioned. -19- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Thank you, Mr. Cadinha. Any other discussion on this subject? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I think the way we have proposed it, in my opinion, is the way it should stand. We should not change it. The water department, as Mr. Cadinha has stated, they admit that they are in the red. I think a lot of it has to do with the collection of sewerage. MR. CADINHA: I 'm sorry, Mr. Trulson, you said the water department admits that they' re in the red. MR. TRULSON: No, no, no, I mean the sewer department is in the red and I think it has to do with collections. I think by having it with the Department of Water Supply, collections would increase and I think that perhaps at first if there is a deficit, eventually it will be gone or would be greatly subsided from where it is now. You can ' t turn somebody' s sewer off if' they don ' t pay their bill but you can turn their water off if they don ' t pay their sewer and water bill that comes together. I think it should stay the way it is. If it does. not work for any reason, the council can change it by ordinance as Maui did. I would be opposed to any motion to an amendment that would include this wording. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Mr. Trulson, I think they are referring to the possibility of having a possible conflict by having it mentioned in the charter and they feel that ordinance at a later date could be addressed to this particular section or department and that it could be placed within a department that it would operate most efficiently. They felt that because the water system does not have the sewer department attached to it now and that the Maui County did change their initial proposal, they feel it might be just as well to have that changed now. MR. TRULSON: I don ' t know, for sure, the reason for Maui ' s changing but I do feel that the present problem we are having now is the collection in our sewer department. I don ' t know if they had the same problem in Maui. I don ' t know. I don ' t see any conflict as you mentioned. I just feel that the sewer department will be more efficient if it is administated by the water supply. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I still don ' t quite understand the rationale for the request to change it. Mr. Cadinha, maybe you can enlighten me a little bit more. MR. CADINHA: My understanding, now, from a conversation in the hallway is that the current sewerage function, if you will , of the county is being handled by Mr® Harada' s department..and that_ it is not paying its own way. In other words, the collections on the sewer, the money that ' s coming in , is not paying for the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the department and administering to the department. So they use general fund money to pay for their sewerage function. Now, his concern was that if we put it under the water department -20- we are also telling the water department to stand alone, financially, and that we are giving instant red ink on day one to the water department to assimilate. That, as I understand it, was his basic concern. MR. ISHIDA: What kind of concerns me about it- is bothering me is since we have changed the Department of Water Supply from a semi-autonomous body to just another department equivalent to that of the Department of Public Works, I cannot quite understand the problem of funding. If we are using general funds , can ' t the Department of Water Supply have access to the use of general funds as fully as the Department of Public Works? MR. CADINHA: Well , apparently, they can, except that Section 5-6.5 Revenues. . .the revenues derived by the Department of Water Supply shall be kept in a separate fund and shall be such as to make the said department self-supporting. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cadinha, but that doesn ' t necessarily mean that that ' s all the funding that they' re going to have. Right? MR. CADINHA: No. It ' s got to be paid for somehow. I 'm not advocating, believe, me, I 'm just trying to relay. Okay? And there' s a practical matter, too, it ' s hard to control an individual from flushing his toilet but you certainly can control a guy by not giving him water to drink and perhaps that could aid collections, if you put them together. Those are my thoughts. MR. TRULSON: As far ashusing the general fund , I feel that if the collections are done efficiently, there would be less general funds needed to support the :sewer department. MR. CADINHA: Granted. MR. TRULSON: And with the Department of Water Supply, I feel that the collections would be better. I think they are . . .have a better setup organization as far as computers and what have you for billing. .I believe that one of the biggest problems the department of sewerage now has. is, billing. MR. CADINHA: I agree. I was merely enlightening with what input was given me. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Any further discussion? Is there a motion? MR. CADINHA: I might add that if it becomes so cumbersome the council can bang away and get an ordinance if there is something that the mechanics prohibit the good operation. I 'm sure they can always change it. MR. ISHIDA: This is the problem. It has to be a charter amendment. MR. CADINHA: Why? -21- MR. ISHIDA: The charter says that it comes under the department. That ' s the only thing that kind of concerns me. If there is a problem and we want the council to handle that, the council won ' t be able to except by charter amendment. They can initiate the charter amendment. That ' s the thing that ' s bothering me. I don ' t know what to do because I don ' t know what really. . .I think we have to. . . MRS. IWAMOTO: . . . is there a problem. . . . . . CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: They seem to feel that if it were separated and just not mentioned and if, it ' s not mentioned it will stay with the Department of Public Works. However, if they did feel , at a later date, that they would like to have this included in the Department of Water Supply, they could do so by ordinance. But if we have it mentioned here in the charter that they would have to make an amendment to the charter and as a result, I believe, it would have to go before the electorate. So they' re saying leave it, just leave it out of the charter. It does- not indicate it now and they make reference to Maui going back again and leaving it out. They are just saying that they feel they can operate .a lot better if it is left out. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Schutte, did he indicate why they cannot, if it ' s part of the water function? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: I beg your pardon? MR. CADINHA: Did your discussion leave you with any understanding of what the problem might be? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Just that they felt that the sewerage department, maintenance, etc. , installations and so forth could be better handled under the Department of Public Works where it is now. The collections of sewerage fees could very possibly be directed through the Department of Water Supply through the water billing. But they felt to leave it out and they would so direct it later. All they are asking is to leave the language out in the charter and they will redirect it later. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons that we have adopted and are recommending the changes in the Department of Water Supply is for all the departments to work together. In other words, for development or whatever it is. The way we have it now, the sewer and water which , obviously belong together are together under the same department. It doesn ' t have to coordinate- any type of planning with another department, it already has it within that department. To me, I reiterate, this is the better way to have it. I don ' t believe we've had substantial or hardly any word against it other than this letter from Mr. Harada and he really doesn ' t give us any good reason. He said he would prefer it. . . I think there are more reasons to leave it the way it is. -22- MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Can I make an amendment so that we can get this thing off deck to delete the sewerage system from the water board. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: There is , a motion to delete the sewerage system from the Department of Water Supply. Is there a second? MRS. IWAMOTO: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It has been moved and seconded that the sewerage system be deleted from the Department of Water Supply. Is there any further discussion? If not, I will call for the question. Ayes - Yanaga, Yagong, Noes - Trulson, Omonaka, Sensano, Ishida Iwamoto, Kobayshi, - 2 Cadinha, Schutte - 8 Absent - Sakata - l Carried. The motion is carried. The department of sewerage will be deleted from the Department of Water Supply. Mr. Legal Counsel , do you have anything for us today? We had some unfinished business from last week? MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman , I received a message from Steve Bess , who was here last week. He stated that regarding the special provision under the, I forget what section it was now. . .anybody have a hand on it? Chapter 2, Article V, Section 5-2.5. He stated that perhaps it would be best if it is left as is. No change is being recommended by Mr. Bess. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Which section is this that you are referring to? MR. ODA: Section 5-2.5 under the Corporation Counsel. He expressed some concerns about that last week but--and he stated he would draft a proposal for this commission to be ready this week--but he has stated that he has no proposal. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : That ' s fine. HThen it stays as it is. MR. ODA: Regarding the motion that was passed earlier regarding the 9 member council. The option now. . .I suppose this will be option, in fact, #4, or the fourth option anyway. If you will refer to your compiled draft. The Section 3-2, Composition and Terms of the County Council. So that I can proceed and have this matter sent to the printers before next week, before the next meeting, I would like to get the commission ' s approval. This proposal requires very little change from the. . . just the numerical changes to the present option that states the Section 3-2. . .There shall be a county council composed of. . .rather than seven, of course, there will be nine members. Five councilmen shall be elected by the -23- qualified voters of the respective districts as hereinafter described, and FOUR shall be elected at-large. The terms of district councilmen shall be 2-years and the terms of. . .well , you can say the terms of at-large councilmen shall be 4-years and the terms of district councilmen shall be 2-years. The same way as the language is over there. Other than that, that would be the option that was voted upon. The language below that is the same for all practical purposes. So, what. I want, Mr. Chairman, is the commission ' s approval to approve that language with the changes in the number and with the addition of making necessary language changes here to conform, to it and so that I don ' t have to come back to the commission for approval of this particular language. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Do we need a motion and a roll call approval of this? MR. TRULSON: I so move. MR. ODA: I would think so. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Is there a second. MR. CADINHA: I do. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It has been moved and seconded that the language in Section 3-2 for option #4. . .shall we leave ,. this up to you to. . . MR. ODA: That ' s what ; I would appreciate. Just as I stated into the record. The "numerical changes to be made but the rest of the language will remain the same. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It has been so moved and seconded that the language in Section 3-2 from legal counsel be left as is or changed where necessary to take care of the option #4 of 5 district councilmen and 4 at-large. Are you ready for the question? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - Omonaka Ishida, Yanaga, - 1 Trulson, Yagong, Sensano, Iwamoto, Absent - Sakata Schutte - 1 - 9 Carried. SECTION 5-2.6 : . MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, I have another matter which . . .you all have, I hope, a xeroc copy of Section 5-2.6 which is the 81 x 11 regarding Term of Office. It comes under the Corporation Counsel , "really. It ' s a new section to Section 5-2.6. Just passed out today. -24- This provision is similar to the one in the present charter in the compiled present charter, Section 13.8, except that there is specific reference. The latter portion of the proposal is different. Richard, do you want to? MR. ISHIDA: The only reason why I believe that we have to have this provision added in this case covering the corporation counsel is because he cannot be removed unless the council approves his removal . This provision is to prevent the possibility that in a situation where a mayor is re-elected for a second term, the corporation counsel may have been serving under him up to the time of his re-election. He may be faced with the situation where the council and the mayor may not have the same views. One may wish to retain him. One may wish to not retain him. In other words, if the mayor wanted to retain him and he knew that the council would not confirm his appointment, he would just not send his appointment to the council for the second term because under the present provision , the successor would continue in office until a new appointment is made and confirmed. Whreas , if the mayor does not want to retain him for a second term and the council wants to retain the present corporation counsel for the second term, the mayor would then appoint a new appointment but the new appointment would never be confirmed so the existing or the present corporation counsel will continue in office. There will be a deadlock. This is just to prevent that situation. I think all of you know that in the past re-election of the present mayor they were faced with that situation and because there was no such provision of this sort, there was a deadlock until one side had to give. This is just to clarify the point that since we are saying that the corporation counsel is really serving two masters, I think this is just to clarify that point. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, in any event it prevents even' a temporary appointee from holding office beyond three months. Whether as an acting officer or not. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Is this section redrafted also because we added the removal? Is this particular section only for the corp counsel because we don ' t have this provision for other department heads. But last week we took. . .removal has to be confirmed by the council and_ that ' s why we are doing this for the corp counsel? Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Stuart, this would be a new section 5-2.6 then? MR. ODA: Yes, it would be an amendment. I 'm not proposing it. It ' s Mr. Ishida' s. I just -happen to. . . -25- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Mr. Ishida, will you. . . MR. ISHIDA: i ®d like to move that this proposal as drafted. . .proposed Section 5-2.6 be adopted. MR. TRULSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : It has been moved and seconded that Section 5-2.6 be adopted. Term of Office. . .The term of office of the corporation counsel, assistant _. corporation and deputies shall be co-terminous with that of the mayor; provided that where a successor has not been appointed and confirmed, the corporation counsel shall continue in office pending such appointment and confirmation, but in no event shall he continue in office beyond three months, whether acting or otherwise. MR. ISHIDA: After assistant corporation we should add the word "counsel". . .assistant corporation counsel. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: The intent of this motion of this section is to prevent a temporary employee from holding office for more than three months. Any discussion on the motion? MR. OMONAKA: What is the difference between the corp counsel and the other department heads that require confirmation? MR. ISHIDA: The removal of other department heads , they do not require council approval. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Any further discussion? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ishida, as the language now, that is prepared, is an automatic out of office for the corporation counsel as soon as the mayor ' s term expires? MR. ISHIDA: Right. Except he can stay there an additional three months. MR. OMONAKA: And the mayor would have to re-submit his name or another name. But the intent is there that even if the mayor wins another election, it ' s. . . MR. ISHIDA: Yes, he has to re-submit his name, right. MR. ODA: In the present situation, Mr. Omonaka, theoretically, there could be an acting corporation counsel for four years. MR. ISHIDA: The only thing I think is since we are making him accountable to the mayor and the council , I don ' t think he should be left there if one of the bodies don ' t really want him. -26- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Is there any further discussion? MR. TRULSON : Question. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Call the roll. Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson , Noes - None Yagong, Omonaka, Sensano, Cadinha, Absent - Sakata Kobayashi , Iwamoto, - 1 Ishida, Schutte - 10 Carried. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman , there are some informational matters for the commission. Mr. George Tamashiro, who of course spoke to this body last week , I believe, informed me and Mr. Arakaki that he would be going to San Francisco, I believe it was , on August 1,6 and would at that time like to take the ballot language over to San Francisco to discuss it with the printers to prepare. . at least, to begin preparation on the ballot. So, we have, kind of an immediate deadline of two weeks from now basically, slightly over two weeks to have at least the ballot portion prepared._ . Most of it has been prepared in tentative language except for the changes made today regarding the third option. The reason why I have made this language and have it presented to this commission is basically. . .if I can explain the philosophy behind this. Some of the other counties in their charter amendments have just had basically one or two general questions. There was no specific question on each specific amendment as to voting yes or no. We are not going that far in just having one general question but on the major amendments perhaps it might be best if the voters voted yes or no. The rest of the amendments that really are more housekeeping than really have substantive value are not specifically voted on otherwise the limitations that Mr. Tamashiro mentioned would be exceeded and we cannot . . .simply cannot functionally put all those on the ballot. So I 'm trying to keep it within reason and yet not over blow it and have every comma, paragraph, change, or whatever, or numerical change put in. I don ' t think it ' s necessary for punctuation and grammatical changes to be voted upon. So I have as the last question as a bucket provision, so to speak, asked the voters to approve all other amendments not specifically voted upon. -27- So if any of you have any questions or concerns you would like to express at this time, I will be glad to try to answer them. Or do you have any other suggestions, I certainly would be glad to try to work it into the ballots. As I say, I don ' t pretend to be an expert on ballot preparation and I 'm trying to give it a very commonsensical kind of approach. I 'm trying to look at it in the terms of the voter and considering the problems that resulted from the Constitutional Convention.. You will notice each question is subsequently followed by a brief explanation. The purpose of that is to be sure that. . .well , to make it unnecessary for voters to refer to the newspaper supplement which will be available at the voting booths and will be distributed. The tentative publication date we already have, September 16. We are shooting for the deadline on the newspaper supplement that we showed you last week. Arrangements are now being made with the Hawaii Tribune-Herald for that and the distribution also to West Hawaii Today. The explanation , as I say, we hope will not make it necessary to refer to the supplement but the supplement will be available at the voting places. As I stated, we will also have it in Ilocano and in Japanese. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda. I was looking at the question on Boards and Commissions and in the explanation what was the reasoning to point out realtors and developers from being barred? Are they the only ones? MR. ODA: I think , right now, they are the only ones. MR. TRULSON: Is that necessary to be put in? MR. ODA: I needed an example, and as far as I saw it was the only one so. . .I am not singling them out, it just so happened they are the only ones who are now barred. But if you folks don ' t feel it should belong there, no problem. MR. TRULSON: Don ' t you think just the first sentence alone would be explanation enough. MR. ODA: The what? MR. TRULSON: I think the first sentence alone. . . if approved, up . to. . .removes any such prior prohibition. I think would be ample explanation. I don ' t think we should point out any particular group. MRS. KOBAYASHI : But they are the ones that MR. TRULSON: Right, but they don ' t need to be in the explanation. I don ' t see any reason for that. -28- MR. ODA: As I say, it doesn ' t bother me. MR. TRULSON: I think the first part of it is enough explanation. Any occupation , period. MR. ODA: This is why I want your folks' input on it. Of course, the language will be compressed to be put on that card, you understand. Not on a sheet like this. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Stuart, I think if we can get the intent in the least amount of words to the voter, I think he has a better time of understanding it. MR. ODA: It took me two full afternoons to prepare this with the intent of trying to keep the language as brief as possible but, by nature, I tend to be very verbose. If you feel that some stuff is not necessary, well , no problem. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, are you recommending that we move to approve this ballot? MR. ODA: I think I would appreciate it so that at least we have the commission behind the ballot language form. MR. TRULSON: I would so move with the exception as I mentioned before in Boards and Commissions, deleting that one sentence. . .Presently, realtors and developers are barred from, serving on the Planning Commission. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It has been moved and seconded that this. . .excuse me, Bud, restate your motion again please. MR. TRULSON: Okay. Regarding the ballot, I move that we accept this ballot proposal with the exception as- stated on Boards and Commissions. Also, I think there is going to have to be one more option put in regarding the councilmen. I move that we accept the proposal. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: We have one exception and that is within the Boards and Commissions. MR. TRULSON: Right. Delete the last sentence of the explanation. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It ' s been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Really a question. One of semantics. We all have our own preferences. My only concern is that the average voter is not going to know what semi-autonomous, eliminate, research and research services for the county council mean. I don ' t know. . .can the ballot be worded such a way like. . .should the county council have their own lawyer. . .or. . .should the Board of Water Supply come under the mayor. . .? -29- MR. TRULSON: Won ' t that be explaned in the handout? MR. CADINHA: That ' s an oversimplification , but that ' s my only concern. I 'm not sure that it ' s clear and understandable. I may be all wet. . . MR. ODA: Mr. Cadinha, what about the explanation . . .if approved this amendment would permit the county council to hire its own attorney? You know what I mean? MR. CADINHA: Yes. That ' s clear. I don ' t know. . . MR. ODA: It ' s possible that, you know, from my standpoint, I 'm using some :high-maka-makes' words CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Mr. Trulson. MR. TRULSON: I would imagine that by election time that there will be a lot of discussion , rhetoric, print , regarding all of these proposals and I believe any voter who is interested is going to be knowing what we mean. MR. ISHIDA: Stuart, the granting of the planning director the authority -to grant variances. You don ' t consider that to be a;, major. . . .or did I miss it? MR. ODA: I thought we had that. We don ' t have that in here? MR. CADINHA: It ' s just the general plan. . `_ MR. ODA: Oh. It might have been an oversight. That must have been overlooked. We can add that in. MR. TRULSON: May I ask , what are we adding in? MR. ODA: The Planning Director ' s role in initiating variances, I believe, and his role in acting on rezoning matters. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: This should be added to this. . . MR. ODA: Right, that was an overshight. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : What you are presenting here, Stuart, is what will actually be put on the ballot? MR. ODA: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : And everything else will be in the last provision. MR. ODA: Right. Mr. Ishida said something about what about those in Chapter 4, the Planning Department. I think he' s right. That should belong as an amendment. . .I mean as a ballot provision. -30- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Stuart, would you be able to whip that up right now so we can finalize this vote? We ' ll take a short recess. RECESS : At 5 : 54 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 6: 17 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Meeting is reconvened. Stuart, do you have an changes? MR. ODA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Planning Director' s authority. . .I have a sub-heading. . .Planning Director' s Authority . . .and the basic question is. . .Shall the Charter of the County of Hawaii. . . like the other amendments. . .be amended to redefine the authority of the Planning Director? That ' s the question. . . .Shall the Charter of the County of Hawaii be amended to redefine the authority of the Planning Director? (If approved, this amendment would require the Planning Director to process all rezoning applications and special exceptions to the Planning Commission for appropriate action, and also give him the authority to approve variances. ) That ' s it. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Okay. That shall be added to the ballot. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I would like to incorporate that in my motion. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : It shall be so noted that the Planning Director' s authority shall be incorporated in the motion and seconded. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman . According to the language, he is not empowered to rezone. You said rezoning. MR. ODA: Oh, no, no. He 'shall be given the. . .to process all rezoning applications and special exceptions to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Is there any further discussion? MR. OMONAKA: So we would be acting on the ballot . . .make the motion to adopt with the amendment? Mr. Chairman,_ can we have some discussion on the = choice':where we have under Section 3-2, we will be having four? -31- While we were at recess we had some discussion on this. Can we dtermine what option will be the winner of four choices? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: This motion is up for discussion. At the present we are specifically speaking on Section 3-2 and the ballot. Akira, will you go over the whole thing for the record? (Mr. Omonaka made the following chalkboard example. ) MR. OMONAKA: This is just as example. If we had ten voters voting on that Section 3-2 where we have four propositions , four options. Four will vote for no change. Six will vote for change. And of the six voting for a change, two will vote for 5-2, one will vote for 9 , and three will vote for a 5=4 council makeup. At the last meeting we agreed that a plurality of the votes cast would be the winner. So, what I wanted to ask is it our commissioners ' understanding that this becomes the winner? Or that six being the majority of asking for a change, this becomes the winner and the highest of that yes votes in this case, three. . .becomes 'the winner? MR. TRULSON : That ' s the way I look at it. MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. I don ' t know, I don''t think we had the. . .it was my understanding last time that possibly we would not have the plurality problem because we would have two options at that time. After assuming that the present system is defeated by a majority vote, I envision the problem that we are faced with assuming that = n_th'e first question the present system is defeated, how do you determine which of the remaining options should be considered? - One of the alternatives , as Akira pointed out, do you go back and reconsider how many votes the present system got? I would think we cannot because that already should have been defeated by a majority. However, if we go on the basis of the plurality based upon six votes cast in the remaining three, I find it very difficult to accept , no matter which option gets the highest votes , that it would govern. It seems that whether it ' s legal or not, what if we require all voters to vote on the option , regardless of whether they vote yes or no? I don ' t know whether this is going to make the ballot valid. My thinking is—this, if -the present system is defeated then what we 're doing is we're offering to all the voters the three options. In that fashion maybe a plurality can then be considered valid. But whether that can be considered valid, I don ' t know. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Stuart, is this something new that you ' re proposing? -32- MR. ODA: Since the last time that I spoke to you last week, I stated, I believe, on the record that I did not know of any law that referred to Mr. Ishida' s concern about whether the majority or plurality controls. We did find in Section 50-11 , Hawaii Revised Statutes a provision regarding charter amendments. Let me read that. "Every charter established under this chapter shall provide means by which the charter may be amended or revised. . .no problem. . .the provisions for amendment and revision must provide for approval of all amendments and revisions by referendum to the electors of the county. . .no problem. . .the amendment or revision shall be considered ratified,-if a majority of the electors voting on the amendment or revision cast their ballots in favor of adoption. " "® ®=®majority of the electors voting on the amendment or revision cast their ballots in favor of adoption. " The question that comes up is if you break it down into too many options can you even get a majority at all? The more options you have, the less chance there will be for any majority to come about. So according to the present state of the law, Section 50-11 , you have to have a majority for any amendment. A majority of the electors voting. So, if you have ten in people voting, the amendment has to have six. MR. TRULSON: On a specific amendment. MR. ODA: On the amendment or a revision. MR. OMONAKA: So, would you interpret that six, in this particular instance, would carry? But actually it is not a specific proposal but less than the majority obviously. . . MR. ODA: Well , again , I cannot put my stamp of guarantee on something like that. MR. ISHIDA: If you put four options, I would say any of the options other than the present one must get 51% for the present system to be defeated. If you offer it as an option of the four, what I think you ' re doing is you 're guaranteeing its retention. Because I don ' t think each one of the other three can get 51%. To me, it ' s almost an impossibility. MR. TRULSON : You would have to go with the way you have it. Yes , no and if the yesescarry, that ' s the majority. Then the plurality of which option is chosen. MR. ODA: As I say, that ' s my opinion. . . -33- MR. ISHIDA: Yes, that ' s how you ' re thinking but what bothers me then is. . . MR. OMONAKA: The body is too small to carry it out. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. When you go down to the six that are voting for the three options. Now, when you compare the results, I don ' t think you should. . .say, we take three as the winner, I don ' t think you should add two and one, you know, I think you should compare three and two only. For those people who have voted for option #2, they were looking at two options, actually, you cannot add two and one and compare it with three. MR. CADINHA: Come again, Herman , on that. MR. ISHIDA: Can you explain that again? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Herman, do you want to pick up this mike? (Mr. Sensano explained the following at the chalkboard. ) MR. SENSANO: Now, there are three options and to me when I vote, I 'm not thinking of the three, I',.m only thinking of two. So, therefore, if my vote comes. . .I mean , if these people who vote here. . .now, if this is the highest number among the three. So, when we compare this, we don ' t add two and one and compare it with three. You only compare it with one and three and two. That ' s the way I think. And, another thing is six and four is 100% of the voters. After you have taken the majority, you don ' t apply the same percentage to this. This becomes a hundred percent itself. That ' s the way I think. You no longer include the four in the 100% in selecting one of the options. MR. ISHIDA: The only thing that bothers me with that is you are effectively taking where had you put four options together, then the present system would have won. MR. ODA: I think you can have as many opinions on this one as you have options. MR. ISHIDA: Yes , I agree. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: But I think , Stuart, the Revised Statutes m . . .'ydu have just read it, 50-11. . . MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. I don ' t want to stifle discussion. I think it' s good that all this is coming out but perhaps it might be wise, since we haven ' t done so, that we check with the Lt. Governor' s Office, tomorrow. I ' ll call and get a specific response to this proposal one way or the other and to ask for their opinion on it, whether it. . .well , we ' ll cite the charter provision. . .the statute on the majority of the electors. I don ' t want to delay this thing but it ' s important enough for us to get an opinion anyway. -34- MRS. KOBAYASHI : What if we just worked on the other ballot questions. Would that help you any? MR. ODA: Right. If the motion can be deferred as to the provision regarding Section 3-2 and if the commission in inclined to approve the rest then we can finish it up. . . MR. TRULSON: I ' ll amend my motion to defer Section 3-2. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Bud, is your motion to defer? MR. TRULSON: Section 3-2 of the ballot. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: All right. Discussion on the ballot will continue. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Would it help any if this commission took a position to say that the intent of the propositions, any propositions on the ballot, help-®of how the ballot vote. . . MR. ODA: Well , the intent of the commission is always very important intimes of ambiguity or in case there is a court challenge on it. So, I would have no ,objection to something like that. I think intent is good. Something on the record that people can refer to. MR. OMONAKA: Would it help any if we developed this intent first before you go to the Ltd Governor, or wait until we have an opinion? MR. ODA: Oh, no, as I say, I 'm not trying to stifle discussion. MR. OMONAKA: I understand that but would it help any if we take a position now prior to your going to the Lt. Governor or after? MR. ODA: Oh, no, that ' s okay. No problem. MR. ISHIDA: But does it make any difference for you? If it doesn ' t make any difference whether we take a position then I don ' t think it would make any difference. MR. ODA: The position would go toward intent and at least the discussion leading up to it would go toward intent. I could make the specific question, refer the specific question to the Lt® Governor, that office, and if they say, that ' s not and we can 't do that, then. . . . MR. TRULSON : Perhaps if they know our intent, if it can ' t be done this way they will have an answer on how it can be done to accompany our intent. MR. ODA: I don ' t think it would hurt. -35- CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Any further discussion on the intent? MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Why don ' t we take a vote on the motion as revised and then we can go back to - whether we want to do something on the apportionment section. As I understand the motion, the Section 3-2 has been withdrawn. Deferred and we could vote on the remainder. MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : No further discussion? I ' ll call for the question. Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Yanaga, Trulson, Absent - Sakata Yagong, Omonaka, - 1 Sensano. Schutte - 10 Carried. Motion is carried. Any further discussion on the balance of the ballot? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Just so that I am clear on the intent that we want. . .that is if the majority of the people request a change, a plurality of that majority can dictate which change it is going to be. Option #1 , #2, or #3. MR. ISHIDA: That ' s what you want? MR. TRULSON: No, that is what I 'm looking at it as' my reasoning of the intent. That ' s what I feel it is. But am I alone in that assumption? MR. ISHIDA: My view is just that I go along with you to the extent that it is very difficult for me to accept the plurality in this case, the example from the plurality from the six then governs and overrides the four that voted for status quo. What I would like to see, if at all possible, is that regardless of whether voters vote yes or no on one they all are required to vote on the three options. And then we accept the plurality. I can see problems there but at least all have the opportunity. . . MR. ODA: How do you get a majority? MR. ISHIDA: You don ' t get a majority. Would you need a majority at that time, in view of the statutory language? MR. ODA: Do I understand your question, Richard? Are you saying that even if that example there where four people ,out of ten voters vote no change and six vote yes. . . the four who voted for no change, also vote for the options? -36- MR. ISHIDA: Yes, the three options. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Why would he vote for no change and then vote for the options? MR. ODA: It ' s inconsistent with the vote of no change, right? MR. IS-iIDA: Well , no, I don ' t think it ' s inconsistent because they want no change, but , that no change has been defeated. MR. ODA: But they don ' t know that. MR. ISHIDA: So it has to be worded regardless of whether they voted yes or not, if you are given the alternative to vote for one of those three options , which one would you want? MR. TRULSON: Why should they be given two votes? That is in effect what -you are giving them. You 're giving them a second choice. MR. ISHIDA: That ' s right. MR. TRULSON: So why only should they get two choices? If you vote for yes, you only get one choice. I mean one choice as to what type of council makeup. I can vote yes or I can vote no up there to retain it and if I don ' t like that I can take my second choice. MR. ISHIDA.: That ' s right. MR. TRULSON: It doesn ' t seem fair. MR. ISHIDA: Well , because to me it seems that if you go up and say. . .actually, we are presenting two ballots , okay, yes or no on the present system. The present system is defeated, okay. Now, we're giving them another ballot. Since we don 't have a system, which system do you want? That ' s my thinking. MR. ODA: Richard, supposing initially the number is six to four. Six on the top and four to the bottom, right? The options, everybody votes on the options under your proposal . The ten people who vote on the option. . .initially, six people said no, so there is a possibility that. . . MR. ISHIDA: No, so you don ' t count. After that that ' s pau. As far as counting the ballots is concerned, you don ' t go any further. MR. SENSANO: You don ' t know that ahead of time. MR. ODA: That ' s right, you don ' t know that ahead of. time. -37- MR. ISHIDA: You get the results but those votes that they cast become ineffective because the present system prevails. MR. ODA: But under that example, the yeses have already prevailed. MR. ISHIDA: No, we 're taking up the other situation. The no prevails. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. May I put down what I think. . . (chalkboard) MR. ODA: Richard, Mr. Sensano is asking what happens. (when the vote to retain present system prevails and all votes are also cast for an option. ) MR. ISHIDA: When that happens you just don ' t count the the second ballot. The present system has not been defeated. MR. SENSANO: Well, it ' s the same thing the other way. MR. ISHIDA: No. MR. CADINHA: What are we voting no and yes for? What is the question? MR. TRULSON: We 're talking about the intent. Now, Richard, was that your feeling about the intent? The way it was on the board? Is that what you 're saying now? MR. ISHIDA: No, no, I 'm just expressing what I 'm thinking of. MR. TRULSON: Oh, I thought we were going on record as to what our intention was. MR. ISHIDA: No. You said what your intent was, so I just put what my intent was. MR. TRULSON: Oh, no, I thought. . . MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. At the last meeting the intent was very simple because we had only three choices so the plurality of the three would carry and that would be obviously more than either one of those two. So now we have a fourth and that was making it harder. My intent was that we have three and the highest votes wins. But now you get four and it throws a different. . . CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Stuart, do you wish to look this over and. . .we've already deferred this until next week and hope that you can come up with something. _38- MR. ODA: If necessary, Mr. Chairman, I think it ' s such an important matter that I will make a trip to the Lt. Governor' s Office and sit down and work it out with them so that we use the expertise that' s available in that office to assist us. I think most of us here are so. . .we just don ' t know enough about these things , except from the fundamental aspect. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Is it my understanding then that this section, or this portion of the ballot, referring to Section 3-2 is deferred now until next week pending your legal advice? MR. ODA: I ' ll try to work something out. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Fine. Is there anything more on this ballot that we would like to talk about now? If not, we shall move to accept it as it is. MR. TRULSON: It ' s already been carried. MRS. KOBAYASHI : We did that. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : I beg your pardon. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman. A couple of other house- keeping things. You had as a handout the Option Two, dated July 24, Composition and Terms. That ' s regarding the one that was voted upon last week. Nine members. Preliminarily, they all represent distr_ icts, the four state representative districts and then later on it will be nine council districts. Just as a matter of formality, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this language approved. MR. OMONAKA: I so move. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: It has been moved and seconded that the language relative to Option Two, Section 3-2, as submitted by council be accepted. Any discussion? Ayes - Yanaga, Trulson , Noes - None OPTION #2: Omonaka, Sensano, SECTION 3-2 Ishida, Iwamoto, Absent - Sakata �--� Kobayashi , Cadinha, - 1 Trulson, Schutte - 10 Carried. MR. ODA: On the next handout, on Transitional Provisions, Section 15-4 (c) regarding the Water Commission, dated July 24, 1979. . . .The Water Commission shall stand abolished and its functions transferred to the Board of Water Supply to the extent provided in Section 5-6.4. SECTION 15-4 (c) We feel , Mr. Chairman , that we have to be absolutely sure that there is no misunderstanding of what the status of the Water Commission is going to be upon the assumed approval of the new amendment regarding the Board of Water Supply. Again, a housekeeping measure. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Section 15-4 (c) as proposed. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: Is there a second? MR. SENSANO: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : It has been moved and seconded that the Transitional Provisions, Section 15-4 (c) be adopted as presented by legal counsel . Any discussion? Lail for the question. Ayes -- Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - Omonaka Ishida, Yanaga, - 1 Trulson, Yagong, Absent - Sakata Sensano, Iwamoto, - 1 Schutte - 9 Carried. MR. ODA: We would like to arrange, Mr. Chairman, a photo session for all of you next week when Mr. Larry Kadooka will be present to take pictures to be included in the Sunday:=__supplement of_ September 16. Can we have all members present next week for that purpose? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Will 3 : 30 next week be all right on Tuesday for you? MR. ODA: Yes, fine. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE: For our regular meeting. Do you want us here earlier? MR. ODA: No, no, that ' s fine. Can you make arrange- ments with Larry Kadooka? He wants to take shots of you sitting over here. But if cannot, cannot. MR. ISHIDA: Can Larry come the following week also? CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : So 3 : 30 next week will be all right. Stuart, does it have to be next week? Kimiaki , I don ' t think, will be here. MR. ODA: Well , maybe he can pick up stragglers the following week. If we postpone it then somebody might not be present the following week. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Do you have any other language change? -40- MR. ODA: That ' s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRULSON: I move for adjournment. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Is there any unfinished business? Move to adjourn. ADJOURNMENT: At 6 :54 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Next meeting date - Tuesday, July 31 , 1979 , 3 : 30 p.m. Hawaii County Councilroom. if oan Carnett, RECORDING SECRETARY -41-