Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-06-05 SUBCOMMITTEE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES 1st Session June 5 , 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The first session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission Subcommittee was called to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii by Mr. Richard Ishida, Chairman. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mr. Richard Ishida Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira Omonaka Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Basilio Yagong Also Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Present: Mrs. Joan Carnett, Secretary CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The Subcommittee consists of five individuals of the Charter Commission who have been delegated the authority to review and come up with recommendations on Article III , Hawaii County Charter, Legislative Branch, County Council. Does anybody have any suggestions as to how we should start? I thought perhaps what we should do is just review what recommendations , or what proposals, have been presented to the commission. Our first proposal, I suppose, we should consider is our presently existing one, as is. The second one is the strict district representation, as has been proposed, principally, by the group from Kona. There has been another proposal consisting of following the present State House of Representatives, the representation being 5 districts and 4 at-large. Retaining, of course, the present 9 councilmen. We have also had a proposal of 5 districts and 2 at-large "reducing the number of the council positionsto. seven. In line with those above, we have also been given the recommendations of the years in terms. They have all come in in various terms, mainly, 4 year terms ; 4 year staggered or for 2 years. MRS. KOBAYASHI : There was 1 at-large. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: One at-large? How many districts? If this more or less covers what has been proposed, why don 't we look over the present system to begin. . . MR. OMONAKA: There is one other item that has to do with the temporary vacancy. Do you want some discussion on that also? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Why don ' t we take that up later. Why don ' t we restrict, right now, to maybe numerical as far as the number of districts, or how we will plan the districting. And then, thereafter, we can take the other areas in Article III. I think there are some other aspects in the article we have to cover, too, but at least now why don ' t we restrict ourselves to the number of council people and the manner of their representa- tion. . .whether it be at-large or district and how many districts. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Has counsel checked into whether the alternatives are constitutional or not? Because at one hearing somebody said that if we accept anything other than the present one, it may not be constitutional. MR. ODA: As I said, previously, the basic problems with the at-large system of the court cases that I could find, was the cases that had ruled that, primarily, the at-large systems were not per se unconstitutional . They were, in many, many cases on the mainland, used in a discriminatory manner to prevent minority groups from exercising political rights. In other words, as you know, if you take this county and say, if you prevent. . .if there was a proponent for districting--district representation, let' s say, from Puna.. .and Puna, let' s say, just theoretically, was made up largely of Mexican Americans. and you didn ' t want a Mexican American to be elected to the county coancil what you do is say everybody should be elected at-large, from the whole island, because you know that the majority of the votes from the whole island are far in excess of those in Puna. So nobody from Puna could ever-get elected unless you set up a districting scheme whereby one candidate from Puna runs at-large, that kind of thing. Generally speaking, the courts tend to favor representation by district wherever possible and need not be numerically one-man, one-vote. They don ' t necessarily condemn at-large, either, so long as it is not used as a basis of discriminating against a certain group of voters, whether they be racial or 'otherwise. The present setup that we have in the charter, in terms of everybody running at-large is not, I wouldn ' t say it is illegal. I think it can stand. It would probably be legal, let me put it in a positive way. But variations of that are also possible. The "example I gave the last time, where in one Supreme Court case they had one representative councilman representirng218 voters, residents rather, and another person had 4,000 people and the Supreme Court upheld that. Clearly, not according to the one-man, one-vote principle. But they look at the overall scheme of things not just numbers. -2- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Why don 't we look at the present system where we have 6 individuals representing districts, and 3 at-large, but all running island wide. Does anybody want to speak for or against? Are there any advantages why we should consider that? Maybe retain that? Does anybody have any feelings, in our hearings, as to whether we should retain our present system? MR. OMONAKA: I believe regarding the present system that, by and large, the majority of the testimony, including several meetings that I have attended--and other clubs and union meetings--they tend to favor a more district form of representation to the council . So, I would not be in favor of retaining our present setup as it is now. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Most of the comments have been that they seem to want at least some aspect of strict districting. MR. SAKATA: Richard, if we do go by district we will have to set up the districts differently from the present, right? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, I think that we will probably have to. I ' ll tell you, frankly, I think the difficulty we are going to be faced with is nothing has come in from the public as far as concrete recommendations. They have just been speaking in terms of very generally, we want districting. The only thing that has really come up concrete, I think, ,is what the West Hawaii Committee came up with based on registration. MR. OMONAKA: Why don ' t we proceed on the basis of concept? Do we want an at-large concept? If we rule that out, then do we want a strict districting? If we rule that out, obviously, we are going to a more defined district, and we can have some discussion there. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, that is a very good idea. I think we should eliminate that point, right. Why don ' t we review then, as far as the testimony that we have had concerning whether strict districting as opposed to, probably, the other extreme, completely at-large. I am assuming, of course, from the basis of the testimonies, just to narrow it up a little, the complete at-large type of situation is not acceptable. That is where everybody runs at-large with no district desig- nation, whatsoever. I think that was kind of clear. So, probably, the extreme position as far as the closest to the at-large representation, I think our present system where we have 3 definitely at-large and then 6 districting, yet they are running at-large. Probably, that is one extreme. Then the other extreme would be strict districting where the numbers would be determined later. MR. OMONAKA: In terms of strict districting, I think we are going to have our hands full in terms of carving out boundaries and even in terms of the number of councilmen we should have. So it is going to be a nightmare for us in terms of setting up districts. -3- Based on that, I would kind of like to rule out a strict district representation , also. If we go 5 districts then we are talking about 5 councilmen and I think that would be too small a number to work with. If you double up, if you go 10, I think that would be too big, also. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Stuart, is districting based upon registered voters, valid? MR. ODA: I think you have to use population. Elected officials have to represent, in general, the population rather than inference or registered voters or non-registered voters, not just registered voters. Every court case that I have looked at based it on the population rather than on the registered voters. Registered voters is just one criteria of many that are looked at, but, generally speaking, if there is only going to be one criteria, then the key criteria will be, population. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: In other words, if we try to consider our district based strictly upon registered voters alone, and nothing else, that is no good. MR. ODA: I don 't think it would be. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: And if we go based upon population, what population count are we supposed to use? MR. ODA: Well , that is going to be another problem because nobody has an exact head count of our existing popula- tion . We do have some information compiled by the Research 4nd Development Department, but these are based on estimates, educated estimates, you might say, of the present population of the entire county. How accurate they are, we don ' t know. Again, these kinds of estimates have been sustained by the Supreme Court inbetween census periods. That is the only way you can get any kind of objective statistics because, obviously, you can ' t go around counting heads between census periods. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: As I assume, now, we don ' t have any current count as far as what the population is, right? As far as the county is concerned? Are we somewhat forced to just rely upon what we have now, like we have the representative districts, and assume that to be applicable? MR. ODA: To answer that question , in a nutshell , I think the answer is, yes, with a qualification. For example, Table VII, of this Data Book, 1978, County of Hawaii , is really a population estimate and projection for the State of Hawaii by counties, 1975 to the year 2000. This commission can use this sort of thing which is compiled by, as I said, from public records and projected, as one way of comparing the present House of Representative districts with the population estimates on this sheet. -4- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Practically speaking, for us, for this Charter Commission to even attempt to use lines other than what we have now, is really a fruitless effort. MR. ODA: I don ' t think we have enough information to work with it right now, unless. . I don ' t think this body has the time nor the wherewithal, the information to do anything, really. . .or, to intelligently come up with another type of districting other than what we have right now. It would come down to just guesswork, if we do that. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The only real districting we have now is this State Representative districting then, right? We don ' t have anything else. The 6 is a very arbitrary. . .not based on population, just an arbitrary districting because they are running at-large. MR. ODA: In 1980, for :example, according to this table, the County of Hawaii population is estimated to be 84, 700. In 1975 , it was estimated to be 75 , 300. At the time that the census was taken , back in 1970 , 63 , 000. So, assuming that every person who came into this county. . .they all spread out over four or five representative districts of the island, to kind of even it out, but you can ' t even assume that. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I don ' t know what you others feel , but the way I look at it, what we can do is getting very limited. MR. SAKATA: One thing we know is that we have had a population shift in the Kona area. MRS. KOBAYASHI : On the testimony for 9 Districts , has anyone really come out and said this is the boundary? MR. OMONAKA: There is no way we can do it. We don ' t have the time nor do we have the resource. By and large, most of the testimony was not for strictly nine. MR. ODA: What alternative you have is if you want to have a preliminary districting plan and then create a reapportionment commission, like some of the other counties have, who will have the specific job realigning the district boundaries in this county and devote full time to it after the 1980 census, then , that is another alternative. MR. OMONAKA: I would favor a 5 district, as the present house district, and go 2 at-large. And like counsel has said we could set up a reapportionment committee to take care of the situation after we get the 1980 census. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Are you talking in terms of 7 council seats? MR. OMONAKA: Yes. -5- r MR. ODA: Mr. Omonaka, presently there are 4 repre- sentative districts, just to clarify what you are saying, you are saying 5 councilman from the present house representative districts--2 from South Hilo, 1 from Puna-Ka' u, 1 from Hamakua, 1 from Kona and 2 at-large. MR. OMONAKA: Would that meet the requirements of the law? MR. ODA: I 'm kind of concerned about the population in Kona which is really not reflected in the present setup. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The problem that we have is what is the population in Kona. MR. ODA: According to the estimates that I just gave you, the population of this island is supposed to have increased by, at least, 20% to 30% since the last census. By between 17 to 20 thousand, so almost, I would say, at least, 25% increase. The question is, where has that increase been? And should any means be taken now to adjust, or should you leave it up to the commission to make an indepth study of that? MR. OMONAKA: I don' t think we can do it, we don' t have the time or the talent. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What would we consider in readjusting that information? What do we have to do? Have an actual count, have a census taken? MR. ODA: You need a much more recent population count. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Based on? MR. ODA: It has to be on the census, that is the only acceptable criteria. Some states have used telephone service, the water meter hookups, that kind of thing. But, then , it takes an awful lot of legwork to get that kind of information. And even then, that is still an estimate, because some people just don ' t have telephones. Especially in some areas of Kona. MR. OMONAKA: Can that apply until we have a census? MR. ODA: I think so. I think it will be legal if you have kept it within the bounds of what we have said, subject to the reapportionment commission making an indepth analysis of the population changes based on the 1980 census. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Akira, basically, I agree with your concept of the districts plus at-large. Why are you saying 2 at-large? Instead of four which would keep the present number of nine? MR. OMONAKA: If you get 4 at-large, you would kind of defeat the purpose of having district representation. -6- What about an idea of one of the two at-large, one represent the historical West Hawaii District and one represent the historical East Hawaii? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Would that be constitutional? MR. ODA: Yes, all sorts of combinations are possible. Right now, it ' s residents in the specific 6 districts of the island, and everybody running at-large. What the proposal is then, why not have one person in addition to the 5 , one person run at-large from West Hawaii and one from East Hawaii. The concerns that I think were expressed by some of the Kona residents, were that if you have at-large candidates they are all going to be elected from Hilo. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What is the historical West Hawaii division? MR. OMONAKA: Kona, North-South Kona, including Kohala, North-South Kohala, including Ka' u. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Ka' u was considered West. If you do that, in essence what you are doing is you still have the strength to retain strict districting. As equal segments. MR. SAKATA: At present now, all 9 councilmen are running at-large. If we go on a 6-3 basis, then we will have 6 of them running from the district and then 3 at-large. Will we satisfy the input that many of ;them have voiced for district representation.? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I think the problem that we have is that we don ' t know what the population of the census within that district was when it was originally adopted. I am assuming, of course, when the state reapportioned this county, it was based on population. I 'm assuming that it met constitutional standards. Correct me, Akira, if I 'm wrong, on the 6-3, the present districting of the county, was more based upon historical districts than population, at that time. MR. OMONAKA: Mr. Chairman, in terms of district representation, I think that if you look at our whole setup of our system, the federal government for most of us is so far away and there is very little input you can do, even the problems that we had in the sugar act and things like that. . it is so far away. The same with the State Legislature, if you want to testify on any bill, I don ' t think you will catch a plane or anything to go, but , local government, county government should be as close as possible to the people. So, I really favor a form of district representation. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: There was one proposal that was given in Ka' u that stated we should double the state representa- tion. In other words, we have 10 councilmen. District #4 would have 2 ; District #3 would have 2 ; District #1 would have 2; and District #2 would have 4. Any thoughts on that? MR. OMONAKA: Yes , too big. . . -7- MRS. KOBAYASHI : When we started hearing the testimonies, I was fairly undecided about representative districts, as to all districts, or all at-large. I think it was in Kona where one of the people testified saying, what if your district representative is not able to service you? Then you have NO representation. This is why I thought the idea of district plus at-large would be a better solution. So, if you couldn ' t work with your district representative you would have a representative at-large, and, hopefully, he would listen to you. You would not be without anybody to represent you, if you went 5 districts. If you went 6 district representation and you couldn ' t get any response from your own district, you would really be lost. But, if you have the combination , you would have a second chance, maybe. Even if the term is for two years--two years is a long time for not being able to get anything done. So, as far as I am concerned, it is the numbers I am not sure about. I am for districts and at-large, but, I am not sure about the numbers. Whether it should be seven or nine. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If we go into a situation as you have just proposed, Akira, the 7 situation with 5 districts and 2 at-large, and have a residential require- ment for the 2 at-large, East-West, what would that serve? MR. OMONAKA: Well , for one thing, the complaints when Councilman Kawahara was out for four or five months, and if your councilman was ill , theoretically, we would have a representative in the county council. I didn ' t mean that as a proposal, though. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: No, when I say propose, I am just using it very informally. Stuart, would I be correct to say that if we are looking to districting, now, we are restricted to this representative district? There is no other form of districting we can really look into? Other than what we have? MR. ODA: Strict districting? More or less, you are tied to this. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: We are kind of tied as of right now. MR. ODA: The other one you can consider is the present one, with the at-large. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: We are kind of limited to what we have now. MR. ODA: That' s right. The reason is that you cannot use the present districts, Puna, Kohala and all that kind of thing because of the population differential. The disparity is too great. -8- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The consensus I get from all the testimony and from today' s discussion from all of you is that we are going to have districting, right? So we are limited to that. And if we are limited to that, and we- talk about districts, we 've got 5 already. We are then narrowing it down to what we are really discussing is how many at-large. I 'm not trying to cut out what should be done later, maybe after the next census comes out, but at least from now until the census comes out , we are kind of limited in our discussion. Would I be correct in saying that? I mean there is-nothing more we can do. MR. ODA: It is a question of how many, two or four at-large. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Right. There is no input on anything we can do, based on what we have. If we try to do something other than what we have, then. . . MR. ODA: It gets to be arbitrary. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: So it seems that we've got five positions accounted for now, that we are talking about. We can ' t go over that because it is going to be ten, right , and I think everybody considers that too much. So we've got five and now we are talking about at-large. So why don ' t we kind of restrict our discussions , right now, strictly on from now to the next census. After we determine that, we will still have to discuss whether we should set up reapportionment and look into more districting, or whatnot. We are thinking about really at-large, right now, how many at-large positions. Akira suggests we come up with two. MRS. KOBAYASHI: Maybe the chairman should run at- large. Didn ' t we have some testimony on that? MR. OMONAKA: Somebody did mention that. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Sombody did. What would your feelings be on that? Having one of the at-large people run for council chairman? MR. OMONAKA: I 'd rather have the district people run for a two year term and the at-large for four year terms. MR. ODA: The question of council chairman, as I understand it, it goes beyond the realm of. . .it' s largely a matter of first, whether they want to be; secondly, whether they are competent to handle the job; thirdly, whether they can get the support of their peers. So, to build that into the election system, it is probably a very bad thing to do. Because the chairman has to be selected from among the group and not be mandated by the voters. The voters, themselves, don ' t really know whether that person can be a good chairman or not. -9- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: So, if we are talking about at- large, it ' s a question of one, two, three or four, I would assume. We have 9 council positions, now, and no one has really come up and said that is too little. If anything, there have been people who have said it is too much. If nine is the limit, and we take it to five district positions, we are talking about, possibly, four at-large. I don ' t 'think_ we should consider any variations of this" at-large, as_this was pointed out in West Hawaii. Any thoughts on that? MR. OMONAKA: I would favor two at-large. It is going to defeat the purpose of district representation with five if you have four more running at-:large. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Why would you want at-large positions, anyway? MR. OMONAKA: If we go strictly pure district, the only thing that can really stand up, as Stuart has said, in terms of legality, Would be the present 5 house districts. So if you add numbers to that. . .you're talking 5 . . . . . . .and I think that is kind of too small. Add the two more to that and you get seven, which would be the right size in terms of the council. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Any other thoughts? What happens if you brought it up and you try to divide the at-large into East and West Hawaii? What are we doing, if we try to do that? Would that really be defeating the purpose? What are we really doing? If we try to divide the at-large positions to residency requirements, do we attempt to cut up the districts but keep the historical East and West or do we try to make the West a little smaller? What I am _looking at, you see some with all of Kona, all Kohala and Ka' u. You set the residency require- ments, two and three, and you are really going to have another at-large position. MR. SAKATA: On this at-large, if we go West Hawaii , East Hawaii. , .If we do and we talk about residency kind of situation, then you are going to limit the councilman , let' s say, from East Hawaii will have to run from that specific district at-large, and one from West Hawaii would run from that specific district at-large. So that would be the two, right? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Right. A hybrid situation. Kind of like what we have right now. The way I look at it is if we do go into this partial residency kind of situation , if.we limit just to two__ at-large, I don 't know if that r:ea.11y _would serve its purpose. I look at it that West Hawaii would have their one representative plus one at-large. The East Hawaii would have their two or three districting with one at-large. If we retain the present makeup of nine and we make it four at-large and using the residency requirements, somehow it seems to be a better representation, if we do that. If we don' t have the residency requirement, then I can see a justification for retaining two at-large. Any more input on this particular area? -10- RECESS: At 3 :07 p.m. the Chair called for a short recess. RECONVENE: At 3 :20 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: As I see the situation now is at least for the interim until the census. . .we are kind of locked in and we have to accept the districting as it now stands, the only thing is whether we are talking about two, three, or four at- large positions and/or whether we should consider residency. What I see, conceptually, is districting and at-large. If nobody has any objections, before this committee takes any definite action__= on it, on what we should do, I want to defer to next week so that I think we will have time to think it over. But I think, conceptually, we know what we are going to be doing. Does anybody disagree with that? Conceptually, everybody agrees that is what we are going to be based on, districting and at-large. The only question we have, right now, is we are discussing numbers as far as at-large, and how, if anything, whether we apply residency requirements or not. We have to think in terms of terms of office and also the most serious one, I think, would be after the 1980 census, what do we do? Do we, at this time, suggest or adopt that we create a county reapportionment commission or not? If we do, do we tell them what type of apportionment we should have? Whether a strict districting or districting and at-large type of situation. Can we do that, Stuart? MR. ODA: What you do is create the commission and let them. . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Let them decide what. . . MR. OMONAKA: But not to change whatever we have.' If we have a total of seven, or nine, whatever it is, I don 't want the reapportionment committee to come in and say, hey, we need only five. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Don ' t change the number. MR. OMONAKA: Right. Their_ job is to set boundaries so that we can have the right .number of_ population. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: That we can do, can' t we, Stuart? MR. OMONAKA: Seven or nine. Whatever. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Whatever the reapportionment committee states, is that law? Is it automatically law? MR. OMONAKA: Without going to the electorate? MR. ODA: As far as what? The reapportionment decision? Oh, yes. -11- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Should we create the reapportion- ment commission , and upon, say, after 1980 , they do meet and come up with a reapportionment scheme, is their decision final and binding? MR. ODA: According to, let ' s say, for for an example, the Honolulu one says that on or before January 2nd of the year following appointment the commission shall file with the clerk, a reapportionment plan which shall become effective upon filing. It is not presented to the voters for approval. MR. OMONAKA: That is merely to set new lines in terms of population. MR. ODA: In terms of district lines, . not to set numbers. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: In other words , should we come up with a 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 plan, the reapportionment commission would be restricted to 5 strict districts. MR. ODA: Their job is to draw the lines, not to create any additional positions or anything like that. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Does it say in the Honolulu Charter, for instance, what criteria they have to use? MR. ODA: This criteria that they have is just what is generally in the Constitution with regard to any other kind's of redistricting. These are mandated by Supreme Court decisions. MRS. KOBAYASHI : What if all of a sudden we find South Kohala is part of Hamakua2 If they have that kind of power. What if Hilo becomes part of Puna? MR. ODA: For example, Y it says here, ho district shall P be drawn so as to unduly favor a person or a political faction. Districts insofar as practical shall be continuous and compact. District lines shall, where possible, follow permanent and easily recognizable features and where practical shall coincide with census tract boundaries. MRS. KOBAYASHI : So, whatever we decide to put into the charter, they will follow that plan. MR. ODA: Yes. You would have to have some kind of criteria for the commission. MR. OMONAKA: Otherwise it becomes arbitrary. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Let ' s discuss the reapportionment commission, right now. Do I understand that everybody feels that we need one, anyway? It has got to be done. So just gearing it to the state' s position. . -12- MR. OMONAKA: The state one can be dangerous, too, because it can be that we may lose one house member, too. So, we need to have our own reapportionment provision. I 'm in favor of doing something in the charter for reapportionment. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Then, Stuart, to facilitate this, could you come up, with more or less a draft as to what the duties of the reapportionment commission would be. Using, I guess, the Honolulu and the other counties as, maybe, guidelines. The only thing I think we have to discuss, or take into consideration is, I think the Honolulu one says every ten years, or eight years. MR. ODA: Eight years , because it started in 1973. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If we have input testimony every eight years, or after every federal census. . .we' ll have to decide that or any variation thereof. What about term of years? Two years or four years? Or, four years staggered? Why did people say two years? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Because they didn ' t want to get stuck. And, also, because they would be more accountable. The State House of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives have them running for two years. Why did they say four years staggered? MR. OMONAKA: Well , the staggered, obviously, we need some continuity. If you have them staggered, at least you would have some holdover's_"in, office._ CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: That was the only distinction. . between two year district and four year at-large. Those that happen to make a distinction. MR. OMONAKA: There was some other argument for a four year term, it was that anybody that gets into office . . there is no way he can quickly assess the county operation in just two years. MR. SAKATA: The staggered term was, I guess, because,of the present council makeup and they had so `much dollars so they figure rather than have a turnover at one crack like this, it would be easier to have a longer office to run the thing than to have them all come into the office new at one time. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Should we all be four years? Or do we try to make a distinction between districts .and. at-large?,_ Or all two years? The consensus seems to be that at least with the at-large people, I don ' t think there is any opposition to four years. They all kind of agree to four years. Is anybody particularly strong to change it to two years? The major argument that was brought up in favor of the two year term was accountability. And one of the major arguments in favor of four year terms was that 'we just didn ' t have enough time if we limit it to two years, to get the most out of a person. -13- MR. SAKATA: If anybody is going to run for political office, he knows that it is going to be an expensive venture. He has to foresee his finances, too. If he doesn ' t see all of these things and doesn 't have the finances, I don ' t think he should run in the first place if he is going to get tied up in a financial type situation. And, if he does run and he knows he is going to serve the county in any office, I think he should really foresee these things because after all, finances are important in running in an election. It is going to be an expensive kind of venture, but, still , I feel that if he does a good job the first time around, the second time it might be a little easier for him to really run for political office because the foundation is set. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: One thing, I think, we should take into consideration when we determine years in terms of length of office, if we are talking about two year terms then I don ' t think we can even consider the issue of recall. In terms__of four years, then, possibly the recall provision then would become applicable. We don ' t have recall here in our present charter but some people did bring up the issue of recall. But it is not this committee' s kuleana. Kimiaki , do you have anything strong about the length of office? MR. SAKATA: I would certainly go on the four year term, too. I feel that if a person is not accoutable and has not done his job, I guess , the next time around, it is the electors responsibility to get him out. MR. OMONAKA: I 'm in favor of a four year term. MR. YAGONG: The same, four years. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The consensus seems to be four year terms. If we have four years, then do we consider staggered terms? Staggered terms would have to be determined depending upon the actual number of council positions we come up with. As far as whether it should be staggered, why don ' t we defer it until we determine the number of positions. How about '_vacancy"? The think the issue came up because of Kawahara' s experience_. The issue has been raised many times about vacancies but one of the problems is how do you define a vacancy. What would be considered a failure to discharge the duties of his office? MR. ODA: Not showing up for council meetings for three months, even if he is able to. Just refusing to perform his duties. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: According to this definition of vacancy that you handed out, this is considered all permanent vacancies, -14- MR. ODA: Yes. Temporary vacancies, I think something else would have to be worked in. For illness or otherwise. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I think what we are going to have to be concerned about Is Councilman Kawahara' s kind of situation where because of physical ailment he is absent Do we provide for a situation like that so that while it is not considered a permanent vacancy, yet it could' be considered an interim only :temporary. -- MR. ODA: Maybe a replacement can be mandated. MR. OMONAKA: If you do a thing like that, what would happenothe temporarily relieved elected official? His salary and that kind of thing. MR. ODA: Yes, if a temporary appointment is made for, let ' s say, people like Bill Kawahara, some provision has got to be made with regard to salary, retirement and things like that, how it would be 'affected. MR. OMONAKA: More especially if it is a council person who depends on the council salary. MR. ODA: The question is do _you want something in there for a temporary problems to-begin with? -is it -of such concern that there has to be something in there? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Well, I think we have to at least touch that part because there has been a lot of input because of Kawahara' s situation;, about whether something like this should be in there. ADJOURNMENT: -. At 3: 40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, June 12, 1979 at 3 :00 p.m. , Hawaii County Councilroom. Joan Carnett 1 RECORDING SECRETARY -15-