Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-08-14 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES 30th Session August 14, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The thirtieth session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission was called to order at 3 : 11 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii by Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Harlan Cadinha Mrs. Amy Iwamoto Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira Omonaka Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Spencer Kalani Schutte Mr. Herman Sensano Mr. Joseph Trulson Mr. Matsuo Yanaga Mr. Basilio Yagong Absent Mr. Richard Ishida and Excused: Also Mr. Yasuki Arakaki , Deputy County Clerk Present : Mr. Masayuki Kawasaki , Captain Cook, Hi. Mr. Bill Kikuchi , The Kikuchi Group Mr. William W. Moss, West Hawaii Committee Mr. Robert J. Santos , Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce Mr. Donald Yamada, Hilo Contractors ° Assn. Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Ms. Frances Higa, Research Assistant Mrs . Joan Carnett, Secretary APPROVAL The Chair called for the approval of minutes OF MINUTES: dated July 25 , 1979 and July 31 , 1979 with the following corrections: 28th Session--July 25 , 1979 Add to roll on page 1 . . .Mrs. Amy Iwamoto Mr. Basilio Yagong Page 15 . .Mr. Trulson statement on Section 3-2, second paragraph, should be two from district 42. 29th Session--July 31 , 1979 Add to roll on page 1. . .Mr. Basilio Yagong Motion was made by Mr. Omonaka to approve minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Schutte and unanimously carried. COMMUNI- The following communications were considered : CATIONS: Comm. 85 : Proposal submitted by Bill Kukuchi , The Kikuchi Group, dated July 31 , 1979 , regarding development of public education materials on proposed charter amendments. Comm. 86: Proposal submitted by the West Hawaii Committee, dated August 3 , 1979 , regarding wording of ballot on proposed charter amendment of Section 3-2. Comm. 87 : Letter from Webster K. Nolan , Editor, West Hawaii Today, dated August 2, 1979 , submitting copy of editorial appearing in August 7 edition of newspaper regarding Section 3-2 of proposed charter amendments. Motion was made by Mrs. Iwamoto to receive and file Communications 85 through 87. Seconded by Mr. Yagong and unanimously carried. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Our major concern today was to vote on Section 3-2, again, on the reapportionment of the county council makeup. Before we get into this , I do want to read a request from Mr. Richard Ishida, who is absent today. (Comm. 88. ) It ' s a letter from Mr. Ishida to the commission . . . "Dear Mr. Sakata: During the period you have been away, a significant question arose concerning the number of options that can be placed upon the ballot concerning Section 3-2, Article III , Hawaii County Charter. Upon reviewing the minutes and discussing with Mr. Stuart Oda, our legal counsel , you will understand the major problem that faces the commission. During the commission ' s discussion, it was felt that such a major issue should not be decided with some members away, and consequently, any action on the matter was deferred to the next meeting. Unfortunately, in attempting this accomodation, the next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 8, 1979, and, without the commission members having been polled, postponed to Tuesday, August 14, 1979. I regret to inform you that I will be away for the entire week of August 12, 1979 and will not be back until August 18 or 19 , 1979. I will be attending a judicial seminar to which I had been committed since June, 1979 , since our schedule at that time indicated that all major issues would have been settled.` Accordingly, I am requesting that the commission, if at all possible, defer any action concerning Section 3-2, Article III , to any date subsequent to August 19, 1979. Respectfully submitted, Richard T. Ishida. " -2- I present this to the commission as a request from Commissioner Ishida. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman , may I ask Stuart a question? Mr. Ishida is requesting until the 19th. What does it do to us in terms of timetable? Would this be workable? MR. ODA: I don ' t really know, Mr. Omonaka. MR. TRULSON : Mr. Chairman. MR. ODA: Everything depends on the. .excuse me, Mr. Trulson. .everything depends on the printing timetable for the Tribune-Herald and the translations for the supplements. Right now, I just don 't have enough information to say yes, definitely, we will have time, or, definitely, we won ' t have time. Maybe Mr. Arakaki can. . . MR. OMONAKA: Yes, I 'm going to ask Mr. Arakaki . Yasu? MR. ARAKAKI : Before I go through all this detail , let me explain to you on the 17th George Tamashiro is leaving for San Francisco and he would like to take the ballot with him. Diamond International is going to do the job and he would like to discuss it with them. So we have to get the ballot to him before he leaves for San Francisco. Another problem that we are having is seeing that this material gets to Honolulu to the Hawaii Association r of Language Teachers. They are interpreting the Japanese section of the text of the amendments you have already agreed upon. On the Section 3-2, the item which you are holding fire, will impede the finalization of your ballot. We have to get that finished. We would like to work that on as soon as you decide, and if _you have to make it overtime, then get that out to George Tamashiro as soon as you can. MR. OMONAKA: You have just heard Mr. Ishida' s request that he will be back sometime after the 18th. Will that be time enough? MR. ARAKAKI : No. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. We 're assuming that there is something magic about November. What ' s inconceivable about having an election, a special election , the first week in December? MR. ARAKAKI : Okay, I ' ll answer that one because that question was asked of us. We already made arrangements with all the non-governmental entities throughout the county on the election precinct booths. All those things are anchored down already. The training program is all set for the target date of November 3. If we change that, it ' s not going to change only Mr. Ishida, it ' s going to change the whole arrangement we have developed. -3- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Regarding the polling precincts that Yasu is talking about, the election can still be changed. The election date can be changed. It would necessitate getting these places at a later date, but it is not impossible to do, as I 've been advised by the County Clerk. As far as the election date is concerned, our decision here would take precedence and they would have to make the necessary arrangements to fit in with ours. So if it ' s a matter of having to change the election and move the election date up one or two weeks, in effect, it would give us more time and it would take some of the time restrictions and pressures that are on the ballot makeup now. And in deference to Mr. Ishida, I would like to move that we defer this issue until he is back, per his request. MR. CADINHA: I second the motion. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. I speak in favor of the motion but. . .if I can get the attention. MR. ODA: I 'm sorry. MR. OMONAKA: Yasu, there is a motion on deck now to table, or defer until Mr. Ishida gets back. Moving back our charter election date two weeks , how would this proposal affect all the necessary legal requirements and pre- parations that you are talking about? Is this workable? It can be done? MR. ARAKAKI : As far as the legality is concerned , your charter requires the dissemination of information not less than 45 days. So if you are two weeks behind you are giving them more days , so there is no conflict. The only problem we are going to have is the precinct areas that we have already made reservations for. They may not be available at that later date, I don ' t know. There is no guarantee that we can get those private areas. On government entities there is no problem because we can put on a lot of indirect pressure but wherever we have the private areas if they cannot give us the same place that we were using, we may be in trouble. The question Mr. Cadinha asked was addressed to our election supervisor. The same question , a few days ago, upon return from his illness, and he said it is very difficult to change the date from November 3. MR. TRULSON : Mr. Chairman. Mr. Arakaki , say we didn ' t change the election date. Now, you say that Mr. Tamashiro is going to San Francisco on the 17th or 18th and wants to take the ballots with him. . MR. ARAKAKI : He ' s leaving here on the 17th. MR. TRULSON: On the 17th? How long is he going to be there, do you know? -4- MR. ARAKAKI : About a week. MR. TRULSON: Okay. Would it not be possible in the two or three days after that to mail him the one other ballot that he can work on while he' s up there and still meet the deadline? Without having to change the election date? MR. ODA: It ' s possible. MR. TRULSON: Why couldn ' t that be done? He could take with him everything that we've approved except that one. And as soon as we make a decision , mail it to him and he ' s got it. He ' s already there. I don ' t think we 'd lose that much time and I think we could still meet our time requirements by statute. MR. ARAKAKI : The other area must be considered. I 'm not an advertising expert like Bill Kikuchi but in all the things that we are preparing on the tabloid and whatever infor- mation, we need those finished ballots to go in the tabloid both in Japanese and in English. They have to be translated. So all those things come into play, too. The Japanese and the Ilocano tabloids will have those ballots interpreted into those languages. MR. TRULSON: But don ' t we have until September 15? Or the 16th? So we are talking almost a month from the 17th. Say we should meet on the 19th, we almost have another month and just for only one proposal on one ballot. The rest could still be worked on. We are only talking about this 3-2. It' s not that they have to wait to do the whole thing until we make that decision. They only have one part to do. Maybe I 'm looking at it the wrong way, but it would seem to me they could start on everything except that one point and as soon as they have it, they are still going to have a month after they get it to complete it. MR. ARAKAKI : Mr. Trulson, I think Bill Kikuchi will be here in a short while. Why don ' t we address that section to him because I 'm not aware of the timetable under which the printers operate. I 'm not a printer. He would know because he was working for the Tribune-Herald. He will know what the deadline is going to be and everything. For your information , we are printing 19 ,000 for the Sunday circulation tabloid. You say 5 , 000 for the. West Hawaii. We also need 40,000 for ourselves for precinct distri- bution and we have to give each English speaking group a copy at the polls so that they can ' t say that they didn ' t know what they were voting on. We want to see that they have that privilege. We are going to di_s_trib.ute :some among the department of the aged, also. So we are going to consume the 40 , 000. So we are going to have 45 , 000 plus the 19 , 000. In printing these the Tribune-Herald will need a few more days also because they don ' t have that capacity either. So I would like to ask for a little delay on this final decision until Bill will be here. Those things can be answered by him. -5- MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. I just talked to Bill before coming in. He did say the printing deadline, according to Mr. Withington of the Tribune-Herald, was September 5 and that he had to get all the copy. . . CHAIRMAN SAKATA: September 5 . MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. The motion on the floor is just to defer, not to change the election date. We can act on that motion and then if necessary, if we have to, to work on the election. If it ' s necessary. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Bud ' s idea of mailing it to Mr. Tamashiro, I think, makes sense. United Air has a parcel point-to-point service. They can get it up there in 8 hours. So we ' re really talking about a delay, if this gentleman leaves on the 17th, we could get it to him by the 20th. We are talking about a 3 day delay and he could have it hot in his hands on the mainland the very next day after the decision is made. I call for the vote on the motion to defer action on this until the 19th. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. A special privilege. The intent of your motion then, you are not spelling out the next meeting date? Mr. Cadinha is suggesting perhaps Monday because we can get it up to San Francisco in a day or so. MR. TRULSON: What date did Mr. Ishida say he would be back? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Ishida won ' t be back until the 18th or 19th. MRS. IWAMOTO: Saturday or Sunday. MR. CADINHA: What ' s Monday? The 20th? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: we have a meeting scheduled for the 21st. MR. OMONAKA: That ' s why I wanted to have discussion. So can we get a poll of the commissioners here then to see if we can have everybody present or not on whatever date that Bud' suggests?, I:f we defer it until the 20th or 21st and some of us can ' t make it here, is it your intent then to continue to postpone until all commissioners are present? RECESS: At 3: 34 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 3: 45 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. -6- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: There is a motion on the table to defer the action on Section 3-2 as requested by Mr. Ishida. There was a second to this motion. Does everybody know the intent of the motion? We' ll take a vote. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, So when will we have our next meeting? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It' s scheduled for the 20th. That will be a Monday. MR. OMONAKA: We recessed to take a poll of everybody, including our attorney. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Monday? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Absent - Ishida Sensano, Omonaka, - Yagong, Trulson, Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. OMONAKA: What about our attorney? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Oda is okay. He cannot be here on Tuesday,he said. Monday will be fine. MR. OMONAKA: Is the room available? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Yes. What is the best possible time for everybody? 4 o'clock? All of you can be here at 4 o ' clock on Monday, then? Okay. The motion will include that we will defer this meeting until Monday, the 20th of August, and the meeting time will be at 4 o ' clock. Any other questions on this? Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Ishida Yagong, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. The next meeting will be on the 20th of August at 4 o' clock. Section 3-2 will be deferred until that time as requested by Commissioner Ishida. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, in other matters , in reviewing the language of the charter amendments, I would like to ask the commission to make very minor language changes in two sections based on a suggestion made to us. -7- If we can refer to Section 5-2.6 regarding the corporation counsel. MR. SCHUTTE: Stuart, are you talking about the new section that was proposed? MR. ODA: Right, the term of office. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, ask the commission to add the following words in the beginning of that particular section. The words . . .Notwithstanding Section 12-8. Section 12-8 has to do with the term of office of department heads and all that. It 'sto avoid any definitional problems between the two, or conflicts between the language _ of Section .12-8 regarding the- term of office of departmerit _ heads other than the corporation counsel . And the other slight language change is in Section 12-1 ( f) in the definitional section. Definition of vacancy. We would ask that the commission formally approve the following addition in the beginning before the definition begins. That is, the words. . . "Vacancy" shall have the following meaning: "Vacancy" . ( in quotes). shall have the following meaning with the definition following below that. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, my ( f) starts. . .Any elective office shall become vacant on the happening of any one . . . MR. ODA: That ' s right. It will be the same section. Just above that as part of the same section. Section ( f) would begin with "Vacancy"( in quotes) shall have the following meaning : in the first sentence, colon. MR. TRULSON : Are those the only two changes? MR. ODA: That ' s right . MR. TRULSON : Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept the changes as proposed by counsel. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do we have a second? MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we accept the changes as presented by our legal counsel . Any other discussion on this? Are you ready for the question? MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Just so we don ' t misunderstand , we have prepared our final draft at the last meeting, so would a motion be necessary to suspend the rules again to adopt these so-called minor changes? MR. ODA: I suppose as a formality, it might be necessary. It ' s up to you. It would be a motion to actually amend. -8- MR. SCHUTTE : A motion to amend wouldn ' t be necessary to suspend the rules of procedure. MR. ODA: That ' s right. You won ' t have to suspend it, if you have a motion to amend. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I rephrase my motion to amend as proposed by Mr. Oda. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do I have a second to that now? MR. SCHUTTE : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we amend as suggested by legal counsel. Are you ready for the question? MR. SCHUTTE : Question. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Okay. Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi , Noes - None Iwamoto, Schutte, Sensano, Omonaka, Absent - Ishida Yagong, Trulson, - 1 Yanaga, Sakata - 10 Carried. MR. ODA: We contacted Mr. Tamashiro in Honolulu and he said that it would be okay if we mail the ballot to the company and he will see to it that--and check to see that they receive it and see to it that they consider it as part of the original batch while he ' s up there. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Then that will take care of that section. I have a question for legal counsel. We received this Communication #86, a proposal submitted by the West Hawaii Committee, dated August 3, 1979, regarding wording of ballot on proposed charter amendment of Section 3-2. Did you look at that proposal and read the wording as recommended? MR. ODA: Yes , I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: That ' s okay? MR. ODA: Well , as I told Mr. Moss. . .he did call me on this and I 'm grateful for him to at least have called me. and informed me what he was proposing. I still feel , Mr. Chairman , that this proposal . . .and I have nothing against the substance of the proposal -9_ that is being proposed. It ' s just the procedural matter of whether the manner in which the question is presented will be able to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish. Namely, the fact that the change that I see from the original proposal which was made to this commission by myself regarding the first general question and two options,, the significant change here is the fact that everybody is to vote on the two options down below. Whereas, in the original proposal that I made, only those who voted yes were to vote on the alternatives presented. If we assume that those 100 people who vote above will go down and vote for options #1 and #2, this proposal might work. If the same number of people go down. I have to look at it in terms of its possible problems as well as the other side of the coin. As I see it, in terms of looking at this thing as to how many people will go and who vote yes or no to the change in Section 3-2 and will go down below to vote on either option #1 , or #2, I think. . .I 'm guessing, of course, but I 'm thinking in terms of 75-80% perhaps, at most, will vote on the alternatives. Hopefully, 100% will but I 'm trying to be very realistic. If a person who votes no above. . .the chances are --again , I 'm guessing--that he will not go down to vote even if he is told, you may and you should, or, you have to, or, whatever. If a man, or woman, or whatever, .a person votes no, in principle they may not want to have any options to vote on. They don ' t care. They just say no. I don ' t know. As I say, I 'm guessing. Primarily, those who vote yes will be the ones voting on the alternatives plus some of those who vote no. The major problem that I see with this proposal is the possibility that--the same one that I put out earlier-- that you may not have a majority of either of the options because of the number of people who will not be voting on the options. I may be shaking skeletons in the closet when I say that, but if you have a majority voting yes for a change in the first part. Let ' s say, 51 out of 100 voting yes , we favor a change and you don ' t have a majority of 51 or more on any of the options, what do we have left? They have favored a change and yet there is no majority on any option. The answer that some people have given me is that, well , if you look at the options as a separate amendment that will solve the problem. I 'm not sure that the options would be considered a separate amendment. That ' s the intellectual problem that I have. I think that the options , in my opinion,, the options cannot be considered part of a separate amendment. They are part of one amendment , as far as I can see. So it will still have to be by majority vote. You cannot say that you don ' t need the majority of 51 on the alternatives. I think you still have to have a majority of the total votes cast. So if you have a majority say yes , I favor a change to Section 3-2, but no majority down below, you have, in 'effect, voted out the present system and yet not voted in any option. It ' s a most embarrassing situation for the commission, I think. -10- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, say that we had two options like these as proposed. Not strictly these two options, just two options, and we had the election and there was not a majority in either one of the options. People wanted the change but there was only a plurality on one. . . MR. ODA: Right. MR. TRULSON: Would it be a valid election unless it was challenged? MR. ODA: No, because the County Clerk cannot certify that to be a majority under the statute. It would not be valid. He;: has to certify under the statute that a majority of the people have voted for that particular amendment. The County Clerk is going to have an awful lot of problems determining what, in fact, is the amendment in this particular ballot. Is it a separate amendment so far as the first part is concerned, separated from the second option, ;, provision section? If the option provision section is a separate amendment in and of itself, a separate portion, it has a separate majority.'f hen the problem would disappear. I 'm not sure that it is.. In fact, I don ' t think it is a separate amendment. MR. TRULSON: Is it possible to make it two amendments? Is there a possibility? No, there' s not, you ' re still having a. . . MR. ODA: I can ' t think, right now, of any way that I could make the two sections as the way they are proposed or in any way that I could have thought of since the time that the original one was proposed into two separate amendments because they, in fact, as I see it, are only one. I think, going back, I don ' t want to rehash this thing but there was some similarity with the problem in that 1966 case that went to the Supreme Court. The facts are not the same all along but I think the principle involved in that case---the Supreme Court Justice who wrote that dOcision said that the ballot language could not have been. . .I forget the words he used but he was very critical of about the way the ballot was put together. It could not have been more ineptly drafted , or words to that effect. So, that lengthy response, Mr. Chairman. In all due respect to Mr. Moss, I think he has done a great deal of work on these provisions and I certainly appreciate the input he has made. It 's unfortunate that I just don ' t happen to agree that this thing will be sufficient for the purpose of covering all corners so far as problems go. I would like to say, yes, I think it will work but I just can ' t. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do the commissioners have any other questions pertaining to this? -11- MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss is here, maybe he would like to say a few words in regards to this. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Moss, would you like to say a few words in regards to this proposal? MR. MOSS: Thank you, gentlemen. This is rather unprecedented, my third appearance before you, at the moment. I ' ll try to keep it brief. When I wrote our letter to you, which I took the liberty of mailing to your homes because of the time involved, not knowing that we were going to have several post- ponements and there was plenty of time , I had not read the Supreme Court decision in the Kimura, Matayoshi case that went to the Supreme Court thirteen years ago. In reading it, as Mr. Oda just commented, the Supreme Court was very critical of the wording of the ballot. As;he said, they said it could not have been more ineptly designed to__ accomplish-.the. _purpose that. they wanted to do which was to get a county council elected and give the people a choice as to how they wish to elect it. Having looked at that, and having looked at the difference in the requirements for a majority on the amendments, in the Supreme Court case they were adopting a charter and you had to have a majority of the total votes that were cast in that charter election . Under the section that you will be operating in in amending the charter, the words are. . .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. I tried to put those two things together, the language and the difference on the requirements of a majority on each amendment to get a ballot so that your two questions are separate amendments. I think the language does that. Mr. Oda says otherwise. The two sections very easily---I used his words verbatim for the first proposition, it says , Shall Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii be amended by changing the number, terms, or districts of the county councilmen? Vote yes or no. And then there should be a note to the people regardless of how you vote on that question , you vote on the next one. The next one says, If Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii.- .and this is different from the ones I mailed to you. This is a revision after I read the Supreme Court decision. . .If Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii is to be amended as determined by the vote on the proposition above shall it be amended. . . again, we have the word amended as proposed in option one, below, or in option two, below. There is the crux of my argument. That these are separate amendments that the majority will be determined depending on the people who vote for the first part, will be a majority on that. The people who vote on the second part are the 100% by which a majority will be determined. There is my argument. -12- As I have said before, I think it would be unfortunate if considering the closeness of the feeling as to what method of election of the charter should be--I feel that you all are fairly closely divided as to how it should be done. I know that there is a lot of discussion among people all over the island as to how it should be done and none of us know what the people really think about it and I just hate to think that you 're going to have to narrow your three options which cover the board very nicely down to one, if you don ' t think you can put a second one on the charter. Thank you very much for the opportunity today and I thank you for the courtesies of allowing us to try to make clear our thoughts on the subject. I hope we haven ' t bored you. I wish you good luck on your deliberations later today and next Monday. I ' ll be here. Thank you. MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman . One question for Mr. Moss. In regards to your proposal , take for example, assuming we have 20 voters , 10 voted yes for change, 10 voted no and then you allow them to come down and vote for option one or two. Then 10 went for option one and 10 went for option two, who would be the majority? , MR. MOSS: The tie vote. Let ' s look at the mathematical odds of getting a tie vote. MR. SCHUTTE : That ' s not the idea. That ' s a possibility. Let me give you another example. MR. MOSS: All right. MR. SCHUTTE : If you had the vote for existing or change and had 5 that voted yes and 15 that voted no and they come down below and 15 vote for option one and 5 vote for option two. MR. MOSS: Let me hear those figures , again, excuse me? MR. SCHUTTE: I said if you had 5 that voted yes for a change, 15 voted no, then 15 came down below and voted for option one and- 5 Voted -for option two. MR. MOSS: Okay. . . MR. SCHUTTE : Let ' s take another example, if 20 voted yes for change and they came down below and they had 10 for option one and 10 for option two, then what? MR. MOSS: Let ' s look at the question of a tie vote. When you 're talking 20 people, it ' s easy to have a tie vote. If you' re talking 23 , 000 people, which is approximately the number that will probably vote in your election--if there are 23 ,001 voters, there is no possibility of a tie vote. If there are 22, 999 you can ' t get a tie vote. • -13- If you have an even number of voters. Say you have 23,000 straight, your chances are one out of 23 ,000 that you will have a tie vote, given an even distribution. You have zero chances out of 23, 001 . You have one chance out of 23,000 and you add them together andyou`-have one chance out of 46,000 of getting a tie vote. MR. SCHUTTE: Okay. What happens if you have as an example, if you have 15 that voted no change and you have 15 come down and vote for option one? Then what happens? MR. MOSS: You've locked that out because you say in the second question, the second amendment, if the charter is to be amended as determined by the vote on the proposition above. So the second section is null and void. It doesn ' t apply if it is voted down in the first question. MR. SENSANO: ,. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mss , you and a lot of people have followed this very closely and understand the reasoning. I , as a member of the commission, understand very well , how we are supposed to vote. But, I am thinking of the people who are not going to be exposed as much to this problem as we are and unless I miss my guess, the people who vote no, will not bother to go down because they say why should I go down , I already voted no. I don ' t want any change so why should I go down and vote for a change. Let us say the vote is 49-51 on the first yes or no. That is , let us say, 51% say they want a change and 49% say no, the chances are a great percentage of the 49% who said no are not going to go down and select an option down below. That ' s the only thing that I 'm afraid of. MR. MOSS: Mr. Sensano, as I understand it and the intent of 'separating it into two separate amendments, is the number of people who vote on the first amendment :does- not affect the determination of the majority of ' how many people vote on the second amendment, which is the options. I understand your argument;ithat some people who vote no will not bother to vote on the second question. But whether they don ' t vote will not determine the number necessary to get a majority on the second because i.t:'' is a second amendment and as I said, the Section 50-11 says the majority of the electors voting on the amendment. . .on THE amendment. Not in the total election. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss , the way we understand it, it is just one issue, not two. MR. SENSANO: Mr. Chairman. What I 'm afraid of, Mr. Moss, is let ' s say, the 49% voting on whether to amend the present charter, or not, let us say that 49% say they don ' t want to amend and they don ' t bother to go down below and vote. Are you saying that the majority of the 51% who said above that they are willing, thtt they . are willing, that they would like a change, that the majority of the 51% will determine which amended form will be adopted? -14 . MR. MOSS: I 'm not quite sure I got your question , Mr. Sensano, I 'm sorry. It seems to me that the question of getting the people who voted on the first to vote on the second is one of education ahead of time. I think you are planning a certain amount .of public education and I 'm sure that people who are interested in the outcome of this issue will certainly make the news known to the public through the press and radio and maybe, hopefully, television. Although that ' s controlled more from Oahu than it is from this island. If any of you need copies of that revised ballot that I have, I have some here. A few people got them to begin with. MR. SCHUTTE: Does Mr. Oda have a copy of that? MR. MOSS: I mailed him one. MR. SCHUTTE : The revised one? MR. ODA: Yes , I 'm sure I have it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other questions? MR. SCHUTTE : No, I 'm all finished. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Cadinha? No? Thank you very much. MR. MOSS: Thank you. MR. ODA: Mr. Chairman, I would like the commission ' s input on the ballot language that is before. you. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. I happened.=tolook at the worksheet that counsel has prepared and I have two questions I would like to bring up. That ' s on the first ballot. . .Amendments to general plan. The wording is. . .shall the charter permit the council or planning director to initiate general plan amendments? I was wonder- if that wordingis correct. g Should it be and/or. . .? I 'm just wondering out loud. Is that the correct wording? It looks like it should be one or the other. I think our intent was that both can do it. The second one is on the second page. . .Confirmation of department heads. The wording on this handout is shall the charter provide for the confirmation of department heads? I wonder if it shouldn ' t say. . .for the confirmation by the council? That ' s our intent. I 'm sure a lot of people realize they can only be confirmed by the council but I don ' t k'hbw if the voting public would realize that. So shouldn ' t we perhaps somehow have who is the confirming party? In fact, I think the charter language shows approved by the council . -15- I 'm sorry, it is confirmed. It used to say approved. We changed it. But I wonder if we shouldn ' t have it in there. What does anybody else think? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: You want to change that wording? MR. TRULSON: I 'm not saying I want to change it, I just want everybody to take a look at it and see what they think and have some discussion on it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The first one was on the amendment of the general plan? MR. TRULSON: Right. Unless the explanation that is going to be on the bulletin will explain it. I think we intend to have a poster in the voting booth with the explanation of the amendments. Maybe that would suffice. Let' s say I brought it up for discussion, not for change. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Would this be in the news media? The explanation? MR. TRULSON: No. MR. ODA: No, they will be on the supplement at the voting booth that Mr. Arakaki was talking about and in the September 16 edition of the Hawaii Tribune-Herald. The language in the amendments to the general plan , Mr. Chairman, is basically under Section 3-17 (c) which is the new addition to the section. . . "Amendments to the general plan may be initiated by the council or the planning director. " That ' s the way the amendment is read, so I guess we just put it in that way. It ' s really no big deal , either way, as far as we're concerned. If the commission feels that it prefers the conjunction and/or, you know. As far as the other one on the confirmation of department heads, I think Mr. Trulson ' s point is very` well ;taken . . .shall the charter provide for the confirmation_ of department heads by the county council . . .with the question mark '-after that. I think that ' s very well taken. So that can easily:be implemented. In general , we have, except for Section 3-2, Mr. Chairman, these are the ballot questions. You have I think 13 or 14. Twelve here, right now, and of course, there will be the Section 3-2 which will make it 13. MR. TRULSON: We, in effect, will only have 3 ballots? Right? Only two ballots. It ' s very well . MR. ODA: We tried to compress the language as much as possible and yet not leave too much room for inter- pretation. -16- MR. CADINHA: Stuart. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. "either"Perhaps the word "either with regards to the amendments to the general plan , would clarify. I see how it can be read in two different ways. MR. ODA: Either the council or planning director. MR. CADINHA: However you want it, it was just a suggestion. MR. ODA: Yes, that ' s a good point. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. Why is it that all the questions start with "Shall the charter. . . "? Could you save three words? Is it legally required? MR. ODA: In Chapter 50 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, they have sample questions on charter amendments and they always start in that fashion. We didn ' t want to be that innovative and run away with the horse, so to speak , so. . . so long as it suits the purpose intented, I think , is the main thing, and it ' s clear. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oda, didn ' t we approve the ballot structure before? I can ' t recall . I thought we approved it with the exception of 3-2. I think we left it up to counsel , so this is not to be moved on , it ' s just a handout. MR. ODA: It was approved, as I recollect. However, after we met with the Lt. Governor' s office, they strongly advised us that it was too lengthy. So this is why we cut it down so that it would be suitable as far as spacing is concerned. MR. TRULSON: I think we had left it up to you to devise the ballot , so I don ' t think this is something we have to move on. MR. ODA: This is just for the commission ' s information. Any other comments? We'd appreciate any other comments you might have. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. For what it ' s worth, Stuart, it looks like a good; clean , straightforward attempt at zeroing in. I think it ' s very understandable. To me, it looks like a very good job. MR. ODA: Thank you, very much. MR. TRULSON: I concur. Could we have a short recess? I believe we are waiting for Mr. Kikuchi. RECESS : At 4: 17 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 4: 25 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. -17® CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do any of you people from the audience want to say anything to the commission, here? Would you come up to the mike? MR. KAWASAKI : My name is Masayuki Kawasaki and at the Kona hearing on May 22, I had the difficult task of cutting down a 15 minute speech that I had prepared down to 10 minutes. At the last part of my presentation, I said that the criterion of acceptability was your responsibility. I would like to expand a little bit on that criterion. Acceptability means that the plan that you choose for presentation to the people will have a good chance of being accepted because the plan stills the fears and meets the concerns and aspirations of the majority of the voters of Hawaii County. This commission is the 4th Charter Commission. The 1st Charter Commission submitted to the people a pure district proposal. I recall that the opponents of this plan gave the objections which were raised by Councilman Yamashiro and much more and also emphasized that the pure district proposal favored the control of the council by special interests. The people of the county voted against the pure district setup. The 2nd Charter Commission also failed to develop a plan acceptable to the majority of the people. However, the great effort and money spent on the 1st and 2nd Charter Commissions were not wasted for they provided factual information on the desires of the people in terms of their votes. Then came the 3rd Charter Commission. As a member of the Charter Committee of the Captain Cook Community Association, I worked closely with the Kona member of the Charter Commission, Mr. Ichiro Shikada. I found Mr. Shikada to be a profound thinker with a great sensitivity to the fears and concerns and the aspirations of the people of the various districts of the county. Mr. Shikada developed and presented to the commission a proposal which was later named The Shikada Plan. The Shikada was a masterful compromise that stilled the fears and met the concerns and aspirations of the majority of the voters of the county. One of the great documents of the world., is.'the Constitution of the United States. The members of the convention =which. developed this document are honored as the fathers of our country. The section of the .Constitution that deals with the legislature is a masterful compromise that stilled the fears and met the concerns and aspirations of the people of the original states. -18- The voters of the Hawaii County accepted The Shikada Plan by going to the polls and voting in favor of that plan. By their very action which speaks louder and more elloquently than any words , the people of the county accepted the at-large election of councilmen. Their action spoke. No need for further words, now. The Shikada Plan is a powerful plan. It maximizes the power of the voters of a district. Each voter votes for 9 councilmen. Each district is represented by 9 councilmen. In the decade that has passed since The Shikada Plan was adopted there has been much change, especially in West Hawaii . There has been an influx of people and the realization of the fact that the great potential for develop- ment which drew to part of West Hawaii the name "gold coast. " West Hawaii is a vast gold mine with rich veins of gold, called potential profits. When some sharks in the distant board room of a very wealthy organization decides to move into West Hawaii with the primary goal- of maximizing profits and the permanent residents of say, Kai_lua-Kona, for an example, shout rape, who on the county council can the people turn to? There are two obvious external powers over the county council. One is the power of wealth. The second is the power of the people of the district. The awesome power of the wealthy special interest organization is too well documented in books and news articles to require further comment here. In my presentation of May 22 , at the Kona hearing, an analysis of the flow of power showed that minimizing the power of the votes of the people of a district maximizes the power of wealth. Thus, the best strategy for maximizing the power of wealth of a special interest organization is the advocacy and passage of a pure district council setup which cuts down or reduces the power of the votes of the people of a district to voting for only one councilman. So, in my example of the people of Kailua-Kona who yell , rape, they have only one councilman who represents them and over whom they have the power of their votes. Of course, if the people of the county are aware of the strategy then the strategy becomes difficult to execute. This was one of the reasons--of the two reasons why I participated in the Kona hearing of May 22. The second reason is this. I believe that the United States of America is a great nation. I believe that one reason why America' - is a great nation, is its value system. Among the great American values, democracy, justice, humanitarianism and others, is the value fairness. I believe that fairness which implies concern for others should be one of the dominant values in Hawaii. Thus , it is with the goal of fairness in mind that I spoke in favor of updating and fine tuning The Shikada Plan to meet the reality of the population distribution of today. -19- The 4th Charter Commission is different from the first three Charter Commissions. You have available to you the desires of the Kamaainas of Hawaii expressed by their actions at the polls. Both in terms of what they rejected and what they accepted to help you in the task of passing judgment on the criterion of acceptability. The Shikada Plan is our existent system. To modify or to replace it, you have been presented with three proposals. I feel that the pure district setup and the 7 member plan both have poor acceptability because they fail to still the fears of excessive power of special interests over the county council . These two plans do not provide for effective representation and thereby the control. of the destiny of the district by its people. The two plans do not provide the people of a district with the power of votes over the majority of the councilmen. The proposal, I feel, which best meets this goal of acceptability is the proposal , I understand, which was made by Mr. Schutte. Five district councilmen from equal districts and four at-large councilmen from four equal residential districts. I see no technical difficulties in the implementation of this plan because the districting requirement for the at-large councilmen is for residents only. This plan, I feel , best stills the fears and meets the concerns and , aspirations of the majority of the people of Hawaii. It is an updating and fine tuning of The Shikada Plan. It is a goal oriented plan. A plan that best meets the goal of effective representation of a district by a representation by a majority of the councilmen. It meets the goal of fairness by creating equal districts based on population for both the districts and the at-large councilmen-. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Thank you, very much. MR. YAMADA: My name is Donald Yamada and I represent the Hilo Contractors ' Association and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawaii. I 'm going to speak on the makeup of the council ' z by districts. These two organizations did present written testimony some few months ago and I would just like to reiterate our positions on this. We testified at that time that we were in favor of the 7 man council . Five by four representative districts and two at-large and today I would like to reiterate that position. Quite frankly, the numbers , whether it' s seven or nine, I don ' t think is material . However, in this day and age of .'increased cost of government, we don ' t think it really makes a difference whether you have nine or seven. In fact, ,we would favor a five man council if we could see that the pObii,c would buy it. But we cannot see the public accepting a five man council . The City of Los Angeles has a 5 man council and they have over 2 million voters. So the numbers are immaterial -20- and because we have a 9 man council now it does not necessarily mean that we should stick with a 9 man council . I don ' t think , by the size of our population, that we should have a 9 man council . I think, in the name of government efficiency, we should cut down the size of the council. Thereby, we have selected seven and I think that ' s a number that the public can live with. So I Would just like to reiterate that numbers, here, whether five, nine, or eleven, or, whatever, are immaterial. It ' s just a matter of selecting the best figure that we think the public will buy. However, just in the name of government efficiency, we should keep the number as low as possible to what we think the public will accept. I would like to, again , reiterate our position for a seven man council. MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yamada, would you answer a question , please? MR. YAMADA: Yes. MR. CADINHA: In favor of a seven man , if, numerically, your concern is numbers, how would your organizations look at 4 district, 3 at-large representation? MR. YAMADA: Well , it depends on the districting now, because it it ' s going to be 4 equal districts, by popula- tion? Is that what you mean? MR. CADINHA: Yes, the 4 districts that we have now. MR. YAMADA: In our proposition for 5 council people from the present representative districts, we are advo- cating 2 from the Hilo area, from this Hilo, 2nd district , because of the number of population. It would be very unfair to the voters of Hilo that they will vote for only the one from the district because of the population count over here. MR. CADINHA: I see, so it ' s not purely the numbers, it ' s also the,;_makeup ,of -the seven that you ' re concerned with? MR. YAMADA: Right, it could be by the district and at-large. Two at-large, or, four at-large, to make it seven or nine. MR. CADINHA: The Ka'u voter, under that plan , the Ka'u voter or the Kona voter, under the 5-2 plan, as you 're endorsing right now, has an option to vote for three candidates. And the Hilo voter has an option to vote for four candidates which would comprise the majority in number of the 7 man council . In your eyes, is that fair? MR. YAMADA: I 'm proposing the same districts as the House, the present House districts. So the question is whether or not it would be fair if the Kona people vote for 3 councilmen and the Hilo people vote for 4 council people. If you take by the population, now, the Kona people, or the other districts probably have half the number of voters voting for three versus Hilo that has , what, roughly, 18,000 voters , are voting for four people. -21- MR. SCHUTTE: There are, roughly, 8, 000 voters from district #4, and 13+ thousand voters from district #2. MR. CADINHA: How many voters are there in all the other districts? MR. SCHUTTE : Hamakua has 6+ thousand , which is district #3. District #1 has 8+ thousand. District 44 has 8+ thousand. District #2, which comprises Hilo, has 13+ thousand. So, it ' s not really a split half-and-half situation. If you want to cut it in half, you're talking about a man-and-a-half, if it were cut even. MR. YAMADA: We are also proposing that the districts be the same as the representative districts which is apportioned every ten years , I believe, by the State Legislature. MR. SCHUTTE : If we are going to split up the Hilo district half-and-half, it would be less than what the other districts independently would be. MR. CADINHA: I understand that but you ' re also looking at 13 , 000 voters having an option over the majority, or over 4 elected officials and the rest of the island only voting for three. That ' s my question of fairness. MR. SCHUTTE : Yes , I understand that. What I 'm saying is that if we were to break up Hilo and split it in half, each half would have less than the total of the other districts individually. The other districts have 8,000. You 're looking at 6 , 500 for each district of Hilo, it it was cut in half. MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yamada, as I understand the 5-2. . .in other words, we have 4 representative districts. Of the 4 districts on the island, one would be able to vote for a majority on the council. The other 3 wouldn ' t. Is that correct? District #2 would have a majority vote of the 7 member council, right? MR. ;YAMADA: They will have two votes. MR. TRULSON: Two votes for the district and 2 for at-large. That ' s four. The other district has one for the district and 2 at-large. . .three. The districts #1 , #3 , and #4 don ' t have a majority vote of the council membership. MR. YAMADA: Yes , but please remember that even today the State Legislature, the same thing happens on the representatives. That the Hilo district can vote for two while the rest of the districts, the 1st , 3rd and 4th can vote for one representative in the State Legislature. MR. TRULSON : I understand why there are two in district #2, I 'm just getting to the point like as Mr. Cadinha says about the fairness. Maybe it is fair and maybe it isn ' t. I 'm not making that judgment but the thing is three districts do not have a majority vote. -22- MR. YAMADA: This is not so unusual in that state-wide you ' ll find this all over where some districts will vote for one representative to the city council or to the house and some will vote for three or four in the state Legislatures and the other councils. It ' s not so unusual . Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other questions? Thank you , very much. MR. SANTOS: My name is Robert Santos and I represent the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce. My primary reason in wanting to talk to you today is the concern of the proposed ballot wording which contains these options. I find it inconceivable that anyone would find it fair that less than a majority of the votes would decide such an important matter to the County of Hawaii as the makeup or the method of electing the county council. As Mr. Schutte mentioned in his example, and to expand on that a little bit, if we do have 23, 000 votes cast--and I think that that is a most optimistic figure. . .but, let ' s suppose that we do get 23 , 000 votes and supposing that 10, 000 voters say na, we should not change, and 13,000 voters say yes, we should change. And of the two options the vote is split 7,000 and 6,000. Is it really fair that 7,000 voters will have decided how we are to elect our councilmen for the next ten years , at least? We talk about fairness in the election process , to me, this method is the most unfair proposal that I have seen suggested in all of my time. Our county has become great. One of the great nations in the world, primarily, because of its method of making decisions in which the majority rules. Please, let ' s not begin a change now where we are going to have the minority ruling. I do want to, on behalf of the Chamber, reiterate our support of the 5-2 plan. I do want to say that, like Mr. Yamada, we feel that we could live with the 5-4 plan. However, we find that there is no way that we could accept the single member district plan. First of all , the temporary arrangement is totally unsatisfactory. We cannot see where a district such as Ka 'u or Hamakua would have two councilmen during that temporary period, while Kona would have two, also, and South Hilo would have only three. Secondly, we do not feel , and we are very adamant in this position, that a single member district setup could possibly work in such a small legislative body. We strongly urge you to, first of all , give the voters a choice between the present system and a system that you feel should be an alternative. And we strongly urge you to make that alternative one of the two plans proposed, either the 5-2 or the 5-4. Thank you. -23- MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Santos, I have a question for you. Not on what you spoke about and if you don ' t want to answer it , I ' ll understand. But, we've heard this now for months and that is you say this is a very important decision as far as the very important portion. Why is it such an important portion of the charter and that is how the councilmen are elected ? Now, if you have an answer, fine. If you don ' t, I ' ll understand. MR. SANTOS : I think , Mr. Trulson , that if you went out on the street today and asked any voter which of -thepprOsals being brought to the voters was of the greatest interest and the greatest importance, you 'd probably get 99 out of 100 to pick that one as the most important. I feel that, like a previous speaker mentioned earlier, the ballot is the only way that many voters can reach a politician, an elected official. It is important to every voter, therefore, as to how he is permitted to use his ballot. MR. TRULSON: Thank you, Mr. Santos. RECESS: At 4: 52 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE : At 5 : 15 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will go into the business of the day, again. This is will be on the discussion on the educational program. We would like to have Mr. Kikuchi on this. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Chairman. May I introduce him? • CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Yes , please do. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Thank you. Our publicity sub- committee, which is composed of Bud Trulson, Amy Iwamoto and myself did have an informal meeting regarding what is the thrust of where we were going to go and at this particular meeting we decided that we would aim all of our efforts, at the present time, on that newspaper supplement, the tabloid. I think, for the record, I should mention that Walt Southward, of another public relations firm, did approach us. I do have a letter from him expressing interest in doing some work for the charter. At the time of our meeting we decided that since we had already had Mr. Kikuchi working on the newspaper supplement that we would continue with him. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Excuse me, but on the Mr. Southward one, did you talk to him or did you give him an answer? MRS. KOBAYASHI : He called me and I have a presentation .' .I .didn ' t- call him and tell him what our sub- committee has decided. -24- CHAIRMAN SAKATA: He did call me and I said, will you please send a letter or some sort of communication to the commission. Okay, fine. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Kikuchi did say that. he would be able to present to the commission today a general layout of what the tabloid, the newspaper tabloid will look like. We also discussed the necessity of posters in the voting booths that would give an explanation of what each question is. Each voting booth would have a poster. So besides the ballot that the people will be looking at, there will be a poster explaining what the amendments are about. I guess Mr. Arakaki said this budget that we are working on for publicity is not quite finished because we don ' t have the exact printing costs down. So probably by the next meeting we might have a more exact idea of what kind of budget we are working on. I believe Mr. Kikuchi ' s estimated cost for the graphics , he says, will be between $3,000 and $3 , 600 and this figure does fall within the $4,500 figure as the ceiling limit that we set last week. I guess we need the commission ' s action or approval to go ahead with that. Perhaps I should let Mr. Kikuchi make his presentation. MR. TRULSON Mr. Chairman. Just regarding the posters in the ballot booth. The reason for that is that we had to take the explanation of the amendment off the ballot to provide space. Therefore, by putting the explanation of the ballot amendments in the polling booth, the voter will be able to look at that poster, at the amendment, and see the explanation on it. Before, I believe, when we were first looking at the ballot, the explanation was on the ballot. They will not be now. So that is the reasoning -for this poster. MR. KIKUCHI : Right now we are looking at the 16 page supplement for the proposed charter amendments for the County of Hawaii which is scheduled to run September 16 in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald. In my conversation with Dick Withington, Advertising Manager of the Tribune-Herald, our absolute dead- line for the publication is September 5 , 1979. At that time, all materials including ballots, or sample ballots, final narrative copy, graphics , must be submitted. The paper will make available a press-proof which I will turn over to Gloria' s ,committee to proofread. If corrections are necessary on the proofs, the corrections can be read at the Tribune-Herald for a final check. In other words, when the proof is made available, if there are changes made on the proof, then it goes back to the paper and the paper will make the changes from the proof. But, in order to insure that we will catch all our errors , I would like to recommend that someone, or some persons , be appointed from the Charter Commission and the Clerk ' s office to carry out this added responsibility. -25- Being that we are faced with some economic constraints on this thing, we did have the Maui supplement to go by just to give us a gauge of what would be necessary in our publication. What I did was on the cover page I also included the pictures of the 1979 Charter Review Commission , respective names and district of representation. Why? For the essence of saving space. On page 2 would be the Seal of the County of Hawaii . The transmittal from the Charter Commission to the County Clerk of Hawaii and an introduction of the charter. On page 3 to page 7 it would be the depiction of the Charter Commission proposals to the voters in graphics and narrative. Page 8 and 9 would be sample ballots and support graphics such as the attached storyboard and narrative copy. This section here could be enlarged to accomodate the posters that will be necessary within the voting booths. From page 10 through 16 will be a text of the Charter of the County of Hawaii. Bold print will signify amendments such as the Maui publication. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Bill , perhaps you could pass that around. MR. KIKUCHI : Okay, I ' ll pass it around. Every consideration will be made to retain graphics for other uses such as language publication and other visuals. The estimated costs are $3 , 000 to $3, 600. It will take us approximately 2 weeks to make the September 5 deadline of ' 79. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Are there any questions? MR. SCHUTTE : Yes, one. Gloria, have you talked with Yasuki on this? MRS. KOBAYASHI : On what? MR. SCHUTTE : How much--what he has done? MRS. KOBAYASHI :. I asked him. He gave us , at that meeting, a listing of what the expenses will be but I checked with him this afternoon and he said there are still a lot of pukas. He ' s not sure what the Filipino translation will cost . How much the West Hawaii tabloid will cost. So, hope- fully, by the next meeting he ' ll have a more definite idea as to what the total package will 5e for this tabloid. MR. SCHUTTE: There is nothing holding you folks back. You guys can go ahead and proceed. -26- MRS. KOBAYASHI : Bill has already started to work on it. He did say he is going to make sure that the copy gets to the printer by September 15 . MR. KIKUCHI : What I did was, unlike the Maui one, I devoted page 3 to 7 on the Charter Commission ' s proposals because I believe that it is very important that the work that you have done these past few months--that we can really try to educate the people and try to tell them what the amendments are about. So I left out a lot of stuff like pictures and stuff that Maui had and basically went into what your amendments are to the people. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Maybe after you have all had a chance to see the rough dummy, you might have further questions. MR. KIKUCHI : What we did, on the graphics for the proposed amendments was to get sort of like into a flowchart type of situation where we took the essence of the amendments and_ ,put it into a flowing diagram of what ' s happening: for each topic. MR. TRULSON: I was just taking a look at it before anyone else sees it and I think it looks very good. MR. KIKUCHI : Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Thank you, very much, Mr. Kikuchi. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Also at that meeting that we had with the :county, the County Clerk ' s office suggested--and this is just a suggestion that maybe we should discuss today-- that there be a hotline directed into the County Councilroom on election day. The Clerk ' s office does not want to be bothered with phone calls on the substance of the charter. They said they can answer, where do I go to vote and what time do the voting booths close. But if people are calling about explanations of what the amendments are, they suggested that we go into the purchase of a telephone number or an answering service. MR. TRULSON: Gloria, I think probably we should get two phones here from seven until six, or for the election hours, and between the eleven Charter Commission members perhaps we could agree to man the phones at different times. Between eleven of us we ought to be able to take care of eleven hours. MR. SCHUTTE : Won ' t the people that are at the voting booths be apprised of the--I thought Yasu said that they had a. . . ? Didn ' t Yasu say that they would be apprised of this? So the people that sit there are not there at all to answer these questions if they are asked? The thing is we can ' t explain anything other. It would be very improper for us to answer the phone and if there is a particular thing on the ballot and the individual asks, what should I vote for? Or, what is this? And recommend one particular item. I think we are in the same -27- position and the only thing that we will be able to comment on is to read exactly what is on the ballot. I don ' t think we can voice an opinion as to one way or the other. MR. TRULSON : I don 't think we should voice an opinion on how to vote but if they have questions on what it means , or what have you, I think we just have to take it upon ourselves that say it ' s an issue that perhaps one of us was against and they' re asking us something about it, you have to just take it upon yourself that you're not going to inflict your feeling in that. You can tell them what the issue is and this is what it means about would happen. That ' s up to each individual whether or not they ' re are going to vote this way and I agree with you that possibility is there but I think the 11 commissioners have enough integrity that they are not going to slant their opinion if someone calls in on a question on that particular amendment. At least, I would like to think that. MR. OMONAKA: Gloria, has the subcommittee made any recommendation on this item? MRS. KOBAYASHI : No, we did not take action. We did discuss alternatives. We did say, well , we could give them the names and the phone numbers of all the commissioners at the County Clerk ' s office but then that doesn ' t really solve the problem. MR. TRULSON: We didn ' t take any action on it because as far as taking action, we could not, it has to go before the commission. But I think the three of us seemed to agree that it was a good idea and we would present it to the commission for a vote. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I don ' t know if I was willing to sit--I think I did mention I don ' t know if I would be willing to sit here for who knows--because we did talk about a telephone answering service kind of thing. You know, a data phone, that one of us could check in at a certain time. We did discuss alternatives. MR. SCHUTTE : Gloria, with the authority that was invested in you at the last meeting, I don ' t think it is necessary to come back before this commission and get a vote on installing a phone. MRS. KOBAYASHI : The idea was that if each commissioner mans the phone this is why we have to come back to you for the schedule. That ' s why I wanted to have your feelings on this. MR. OMONAKA: Would this be necessary in the light of preparing all the documents and stuff like that? The flyers, the posters in the voting booths? MRS. KOBAYASHI : The Clerk ' s office said they didn ' t expect a bombardment of calls but the few calls they will get are probably the ones that want an answer and they offered this as a suggestion. -28- MR. OMONAKA: I think they can be referred. If the calls should come from any precinct, I think , the precinct officer can point out, okay, if you are interested in this, this is what it means and they can show them the print-out. MR. SCHUTTE : Can we tell them anything more, Gloria, than_:what the Clerk ' s office would be allowed to tell them? MRS. IWAMOTO: The Clerk ' s office is trying to stay away from that, part. MR. SCHUTTE: But what I 'm saying, Amy, is can we tell them anything more? If they were to call the Clerk ' s office, what could the Clerk ' s office tell them? Now, take that into consideration and can we tell them any more by manning the telephone? Can we give them any more information? MRS. KOBAYASHI : I thought we were supposed to be able to give them the background as to how we arrived at the amendments. MR. SCHUTTE: That could be very slanted depending on who is talking about it. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I know, 2 recognize that. MRS. IWAMOTO: At the beginning, when we first met, I believe Mr. Legaspi had come here to tell us that we should have a telephone service like this. MRS. KOBAYASHI : They wanted the phone about a week before the election. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: They want on the election day a hotline in here? MRS. KOBAYASHI : They suggested we could advertise the hotline number. MR. SCHUTTE : I 'm trying to look at the impact side. How much good is that going to do? Is it going to be worth it to put that in or are we going to put it in just in case somebody does call? And if they do call? MRS. KOBAYASHI : If we put it in we ' ll have to figure out a way to man that. MR. SCHUTTE: How much use out of this phone are we going to get, Bud? MR. TRULSON : Perhaps a dozen calls. I personally don ' t feel we will have many calls. I think most people by the time they get to the polls they pretty well have decided what they are going to do and they are not going to have to call anybody. And I think before they get to the polls they' ll call somebody. The Clerk ' s office or they' ll know who the commission members are and they' ll call us at home. They 've been doing it now for five months. -29- MR. SCHUTTE: With these additional dollars, the total that we have now for this thing will be around $26,000 for the election. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any new business? Next meeting date will be on Monday, the 20th of August at 4: 00 p.m. in the County Councilroom. Will someone move for adjournment? MR. TRULSON : I move for adjournment, MR. SCHUTTE : Second. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor? Carried. ADJOURNMENT: At 5 :55 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Next meeting date - Monday, August 20 , ,1979, at 4:00 p.m. , Hawaii County Councilroom, Hilo, Hawaii. Joan Carnett RECORDING SECRETARY -31- ti ,. BALLOT FORMAT WORKSHEET DISTRICT PRECINCTS CITY AND/OR COUNTY OF STATE OF HAWAII • FRONT BACK OFFICIAL BALLOT TOPSPECtAL ELECTION TOP . SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1979 AMENDMENTS TO .THE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER PROPOSED BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION THE FULL TEXT OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS COV- ERED BY THIS BALLOT IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT YOUR POLLING PLACE. ASK AN ELECTION OFFICIAL FOR IT, IF YOU WISH TO SEE IT. VOTE BOTH SIDES (OVER) . . This stub shall be removed by the Election Official only This stub shall be removed by the ballot box clerk only. -- VOTE YOUR CHOICE ON EACH QUESTION BELOW. 38 COUNCIL ATTORNEY 76 37 75 36 SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR 74 AN ATTORNEY. FOR THE COUNCIL? 1 35 73 34 YES 72 ' 1 33 i NO 71 32 70 • 31 AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN 69 30 68 SHALL THE CHARTER PERMIT THE 67 29 COUNCIL' OR PLANNING DIRECTOR TO 28 INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS? 66 27 YES65 26 NO 64 . 25 63 24 SUNSET LAW 62 . 2361 SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR 60 22 A MANDATORY PROGRAM REVIEW BY 21 THE COUNCIL? 59 Y0 YES 58 19, I • NO 57 18 56 17 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S 55 J. 16 AUTHORITY 54 15 53 SHALL THE CHARTER REDEFINE THE 52 14 AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING 13 DIRECTOR? 51 12 YES 50 11 NO 49 10 48 9WATER SUPPLY 47 8' 46 7 SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED 45 TO BRING THE DEPARTMENT OF 6 WATER SUPPLY UNDER THE MAYOR? 44 5 43 4 ' YES 42 3 NO 41 2 40 j 39 VOTE BOTH SIDES (OVER) Pre-Punch Card Pre-Scored Cards: Unscored Cards: Amount Amount _ Serial Number Serial Number . rr. T - BALLOT FORMAT WORKSHEET DISTRICT PRECINCTS CITY AND/OR COUNTY OF • STATE OF HAWAII FRONT BACK • TOP TOP This stub shall be removed by the ballot box clerk only. _ _ This stub shall be removed by the ballot box clerk only. 38 ` 76 BOARD OF APPEALS 37 • CONFIRMATION OF DEPARTMENT 75 HEADS SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR 36 74 A NEW BOARD OF APPEALS TO HEAR 35 - SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR 73 APPEALS FROM THE PLANNING AND THE CONFIRMATION OF DEPARTMENT. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS? 34 72 HEADS? 712 33 YES 32YES 70 NO 31 NO 69 30 • 68 29ALL OTHER AMENDMENTS 67 CENTRALIZED PURCHASINGALL 28 SHALL ALL OTHER AMENDMENTSBE SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR 27 65 CENTRALIZED PURCHASING? ADOPTED? 26 64 YES 25 YES 63 NO' 24 NO 62 23 61 RECALL 22 60 21 59 SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR 20 58 RECALL OF ELECTED OFFICIALS? 19 57 YES 18 ' 56 NO 17 55 16 54 VACANCY IN OFFICE. 15 53 14 52 SHALL THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR A 13 51 DEFINITION'OF VACANCY? 12 50 YES 11 49 NO 10 48 9 47 MEMBERSHIP ON BOARDS AND. 8 46 COMMISSIONS 7 • 45 SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED SO 6 44 THAT ANY PERSON, REGARDLESS OF 5 43 OCCUPATION, CAN SERVE ON ANY 4 42 BOARD OR COMMISSION? 3 41 YES 2 4° NO 39 VOTE BOTH SIDES (OVER) Pre-Punch Card Pre-Scored Cards: Unscored Cards: Amount Amount Serial Number Serial Number ` r'. • • • BALLOT WORDING . COUNTY COUNCIL: COMPOSITION. AND TERMS SHALL SECTION 3-2 OF THE CHARTER OF THE ER COUNTY OF HAWAIIP THE BE AMENDED BY CHANGING" THE. NUMBER,TERMS, • COUNTY COUNCILMEN? • . (Section 3-2 presently calls for nine - councilmen, 'of which six are residents of six geographical districts, and three . at-large. Amendment: eiXi:Section 3-2 will change the council I makeup, depending on voter choice as explained below, and create a reapportionment commission to 'apportion the district council; seats every ten years beginning in 1983. ) YES . NO IMPORTANT NOTE: Regardless of how you voted on the question � ove a vote on the next question because, if above, the proposition above passes, it is necessary to decide in this election what the new form of- . the 'County Council is to be. • • IF SECTION 3-2 OF THE CHARTER OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII IS TO BE AMENDED AS DETERMINED BY THE VOTE ON THE PROPOSITION ABOVE, SHALL IT BE AMENDED AS PROPOSED IN OPTION ONE BELOW OR AS PROPOSED IN OPTION TWO BELOW? OPTION ONE: (If approved, this amendment 'would provide for a seven member council, five of whom shall run from the four State Representative Districts, and two at-large. At-large councilmen shall have four year terms, district councilmen shall have. two year terms. The Reapportionment Commission : . : :. • may redraw the district ' boundaries but shall. tet: in the five district and two at-large -council seats ) OPTION TWO: (If approved, this amendment would provide for a nine member counoil,all running from the four tit= to Representative Districts - two each from Distric B . 1,3, and 4, with three .from District 2. When the Reappottionment Commission acts in 1983 the nine members would represent nine separate council districts. There are no. at-large councilmen and terms of office shall be two years for all councilmen. ) VOTE FOR ONLY ONE OPTION • OPTION ONE OPTION TWO • August 13 , 1979 , BALLOT WORDING Suggestion One COUNTY COUNCIL: COMPOSITION AND TERMS VOTE FOR ONLY ONE OPTION OPTION ONE: I vote to keep the present nine member council, six being residents of six geographical areas and three at-large. All members serve four year terms. (This is the present council makeup. ) OPTION TWO: I vote to change the council to members , running from the four State Representative Districts , serving year terms and at-large, serving year terms. A reapportionment commission will be created to redraw district lines every ten years beginning in 1983. VOTE FOR ONLY ONE OPTION OPTION ONE OPTION TWO Suggestion Two COUNTY COUNCIL COMPOSITION AND TERMS I VOTE YES FOR ONE OF THE TWO OPTIONS BELOW. • OPTION ONE : Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii shall remain as is , providing for a nine member council, six being residents of six geographical areas and three at-large. All members serve four year terms . OPTION TWO: Section 3-2 of the Charter of the County of Hawaii shall be amended to provide for a member council, of whom shall be elected from the four State Representative Districts and shall be elected at-large. In addition, a reapportionment commission shall be created to apportion the district seats every ten years beginning in 1983. VOTE FOR ONLY ONE OPTION OPTION ONE OPTION TWO 1 f EXPLANATION TO CATCH-ALL' BALLOT QUESTION This ballot provision provides for the approval of all other -amendments that have not been individually voted upon, but nevertheless requiring the formal approval of the voters. Please refer to the introductory remarks for a brief summary of the amendments and the text to the charter in the supplement. The amendments, which include corrections to punctuation, spelling, and other similar matters , are shown in boldface print. Should any of the proposals fail to pass , the County Clerk's Office shall make appropriate corrections to the Article and Section numbers. I %