Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-06-12 SUBCOMMITTEE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES 2nd Session June 12, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The second session of the Hawaii County, Charter Commission Subcommittee was called to order at 3 : 17 p.m. in the Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii by Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman Pro Tem. The roll recorded the following: Present: Mrs. Gloria Kobayashi Mr. Akira Omonaka Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Mr. Basilio Yagong. Absent: Mr. Richard Ishida Also Mr. R. B. Legaspi , County Clerk Present : Mr. Stuart Oda, Attorney Mrs. Joan Carnett, Secretary CHAIRMAN SAKATA: The last time we were talking about the makeup of the county council and we were talking on Section 3-2. Since the chairman is not here, we' ll table this for the time being and we will go into the other areas of the legislative branch that make up the county council. So let ' s look at Section 3-3. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Based on what we heard at the meeting last week about residences, I would assume that 2 years is no good. It would have to be one, if anything. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Did we qualify that on the residency requirement here? Not yet? MR. ODA: Not yet. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Will one year pass? MR. ODA: Well , I cannot guarantee it. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So on Section 3-3 the recommendation is a one year residency instead of the two as stated in the charter at present. MR. OMONAKA: Do we need to put a specific time or just say that as long as he is a legal resident in the district. That should suffice. MR. ODA: You don ' t have to put a time on that, the thing is that it might be a good idea if you put a time on it for the reason that it would avoid last minute change of residences between the district for advantage. For any kind of political advantage it might like, for example, say one official decides to resign and take a state position and there is an immediate opening in that district. So I mean this applies to even the county level. Then, all of a sudden, somebody decides he is going to move there, the night before nominations close. Theoretically, it is possible. You can put a minimum of residence requirements, 3 months or whatever. Even six, you know, some kind of minimum time. It ' s not really necessary. I wouldn' t say it is going to make any. . .you know, it just prevents somebody from making a last minute move for political advantage. MRS. KOBA.YASHI : What is a minimum? Would 6 months be too much? Because, to me, if you are going by district, the whole principle of a district representation is that the person understands the problems and really knows what his district needs. If you've only lived there one week, or one month, can you really say that you know the problems? Of course, you can always argue it the other way, too. The know who they' re electing. But,should y g , I would be for something. I would be for a year if it is constitutional. MR. OMONAKA: Yes, I would favor one year residence. Be consistent all the way around and say one year. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Would that hold up? MR. ODA: What bothers me about that is that one year as a total county residence to run for elective office. . .and if that person, within that year, moves once, from one district to another he is prevented from running from a district, already. Frankly, I don ' t think that is fair. When you look at it that way. Because people, when they first move here, move just to find housing. I know, I did. I came here in 1972 and needed a place to stay and then once I got familiar with the community then I moved. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Did you move a district? MR. ODA: Yes, I did, from the 2nd to the 1st Representative District. I didn ' t know that was a change in district but it just so happened it changed. And not with the intention of any political advantage or anything, or voting preference, or anything like that. I think it has to be analyzed, that kind of angle, too. That is why I say, the district residencies probably should be less than the total county residencies. -2- � J MR. OMONAKA: You are talking from a philosophical point of view, rather than a legal. MR. ODA: Right, I mean from the practical problem standpoint, I guess. In effect, if you say one year in a district and one year in a county to run for any elective office that person is prevented from having moved. He can run in the next election four years later but he cannot move within that year, right? At least, if he wants to run from that district. MR. OMONAKA: Let ' s take it another step. Assuming the guy gets elected as a district representative and then he decides to move. Would he default his seat? MR. ODA: That is under the definition of a vacancy. That seat would be vacant. We have a proposal prepared for that. But it is up to you. Whatever you folks decide. something OMONAKA: Can we put in s g like 90 days prior to the primary election? MRS. KOBAYASHI : This one has 3 months, on this sheet. Three months before the primary. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Shall we set this minimum requirement. MR.' ODA: You have the choices now. No residencies, period. Or up to at least a year. Anyplace inbetween. MRS. KOBAYASHI : None of the other char'ters,based on what this sheet says, none of the other charters have a district requirement. MR. ODA: No. Kauai might have something but Kauai ' s charter is antiquated. Honolulu and Maui don ' t have any. Honolulu doesn ' t have any residency requirements, period. MR. OMONAKA: Maybe, you know, if we do provide for a reapportionment committee and if the lines have to be moved and if the councilman, because of the moving of the line would be affected, so maybe we shouldn_' t . put in a time limit. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: This would be after the 1980 census that they would move the line. . . MR. ODA: . . . . leave it open. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We will try to work on at least one year residency then. . . -3- For a district. .at least 90 days prior to the election. . MR. OMONAKA: I would like to recommend 90 days prior to the close of nominations for filing a petition for election. MRS. KOBAYASHI : How would you take care of the apportionment commission ' s decision? MR. OMONAKA: The guy has got to make up his mind. He has so many days. He has got to move or stay there. At least, it gives him time. MR. ODA: What if we word it in such a way. . 6 months or 90 days immediately preceding the primary election or his appointment, to cover appointments for vacancies. That is why they have the word appointment there. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So, if he does leave his district then that automatically becomes a vacant seat, right? MR. ODA: Yes. Rudy, how many months before the primary election are the nominations closed? MR. LEGASPI : 90 days. I can check on that for sure. MR. ODA: 90 days. MR. LEGASPI : I was just curious to listen to your discussion on this, Mr. Chairman. I think if you don ' t set it at a year ;y-ou_ _ _ would be in violation of the HRS. I think if the charter does not spell out the residency requirement for a year you will be in violation. That ' s 62-3, Stuart, on that. Section 62-3 ". . .Has been a duly qualified elector of the State and of the County in which he is elected for at least one year next prior to his election. . . " So there is a residency requirement already imposed by the state. , MR. OMONAKA: But, that is for state office, or? MR. LEGASPI : No. Local office. Again, this is written up in my recommendations. It think it is identified as Communication #17. What we were recommending at that time was that for the three different types of elections.. . For the mayor, prosecuting attorney, and the council to conform to the State Statute, wasjust one year. We recommended that in Communication #17. MR. ODA: What about residency in the district? -4- MR. LEGASPI : We didn ' t spell it out at that time but I think it would be appropriate. One year residency in a district. MR. ODA: What does the State Statute say on that? MR. LEGASPI : It reads, ". . .Has been a duly qualified elector of the State and of the County in which he is elected for at least one year next prior to his election. . . " This is the General Qualifications of Officers. That is the title of that Section 62-3. MR. ODA: That doesn ' t apply to a district. We can set whatever we want in a district. That one is for general qualifications for running for office under the first part of Section 3-3. You see, so far as State Statutes on residency go, . we can make it tougher. MR. LEGASPI : Okay. MayI Mr. Chairman, � again. In the submission to you, Communication 17, there was an opinion that said anything over a year would be unconsti- tutional and we can ' t defend it. MR. ODA: 'That' s right. Anything over a year. So, like Honolulu and Maui , they already did away with the residency requirement. That is why their charter is legal. But you can' t quote anything greater than, what State Statute says. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So anything above a year would be against the constitution then. MR. ODA: Against that State Statute, yes. We can make it less. MR. LEGASPI : I ' ll find out what that cut off date on that is. . .I ' ll check it out. MR. ODA: I thought it was 90 days, or something like that. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: So we are still hung up on the district one. MR. ODA: 90 days immediately preceding the primary election or his appointment. It has been pointed out to me that under the first part of Section 3-3 it says we are discussing one year immediately preceding his election or appointment. And on the next page, I think we said the primary election or his appointment. So I think we have to make it consistent so far as the language is concerned. Either preceding his election or appointment or preceding the primary election or appointment. -5- MRS. KOBAYASHI : So you say we either have to have primary election added to both sentences,or just election? MR. ODA: Well , you don ' t have to put primary, you can just leave it as it is. MRS. KOBAYASHI : As election. MR. ODA: But change the number of years, whatever. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Your sentence was one, one year? MR. ODA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: We' ll go to the next one, residency in the district and we go to 90 days, rather than the one year. MR. ODA: Well , you see, election takes place far beyond. In other words, there is a period of one month between the primary and the general, between October to November, right? So, the individual has to, if we say 90 days that means the date would be after the nominations are closed. MR. LEGASPI : 60 days before the primaryare the close- of -nominations. MR. ODA: 60 days. MR. LEGASPI : . . . .residency for 3 months. MR. ODA: Residency for 3 months? For any primary election. This applies to all candidates, right? CHAIRMAN SAKATA: County, state, all of them. MR. ODA: Yes. MR. OMONAKA: Let' s follow that one then. MR. ODA: So if we leave it 90 days before the primary. . MR. OMONAKA: It will conform. MR. ODA: So it would be one year. . .we could leave that language one year before his election or appointment. Because it goes way beyond the. . .and in the district 90 days preceding the primary election or appointment. 90 days and 3 months might be different, right? Because February is only 28 days, other months have 31 days, some months have 30 days. What do you recommend? -6- MR. LEGASPI : 90 days. MR. ODA: The suggested language then, if I can trace it. . .a person must be a citizen of the United States of America and have been a duly qualified elector of the county for at least one year immediately preceding his election or appointment to the county council. Where residency in a district is a requirement, a person must have been a resident voter of thd' district from which he is to be elected or appointed for at least 90 days immediately preceding the primary election or his appointment. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: On the vacancy now. That should be retained then. No change on the vacancy section? MR. OMONAKA: No change? MR. ODA: My recommendation, Mr. Chairman, is to delete the last two sentences of Section 3-3 for the reason that we have a proposed definition of vacancy which incorporates those two sentences. . .So that they will be consolidated under the definition of a vacancy. Maybe we can hold it in abeyance until the definition of vacancy is taken up again. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on this? Shall we_ go to Section 3-4. Compensation . MR. OMONAKA: Do we need that under paragraph (d) (As amended by Ordinance No. 56, effective November. 26, 1974) ? MR. ODA: That is just an informational thing inserted in there. Rudy, this section on salary commission , is it • still meeting? MR. LEGASPI : No, that usually is an ad hoc thing. They reconvene it. It shouldn ' t be a permanent commission to my knowledge. They make their recommendations and upon their receiving their recommendations they dissolve. MR. OMONAKA: But you do require this in there. MR. LEGASPI : Well, it ' s at your option. MRS. KOBAYASHI : It doesn ' t say how often they have to meet, right? MR. LEGASPI : Well , at that time, I think we had the question of salaries for the council people. I guess they wanted a review upon ten years, or thereafter, kind of thing. -7- MR. ODA: The last time the council got a raise, did the salary commission make-- that deterMination?- _-_- _ MR. LEGASPI : Yes. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Was that in ' 74? MR. LEGASPI : That was about it, right. It was appointed by the mayor, with no council confirmation, of course. They convened and made their recommendations and that was it. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Akira, was that question you had on subsection (b) or (d) ? MR. OMONAKA: The last one the last sentence beneath (d) . MRS. KOBAYASHI : I was just wondering about (b) if we are going to follow the house districts, State House Districts, then would we. . .can you go by six districts? MR. OMONAKA: Under the old charter, the original , it merely had a three sentence thing that merely said the salary of the councilmen be adopted by ordinance and no increase shall take place while that councilman is in office and also no increase in salary shall be made during the last six months of any term. So that was amended in ' 74, right , and this provision was put in. So I think this arrangement is good. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Shall we retain this section then? Section 3-4? Compensation and Salary Commission. Okay. Next we will go to Section 3-5 which is Vacancy in Office. MRS. KOBAYASHI : 'Stuart-,- do ,you want this definition you gave us last time as part. .'.would you suggest that it be part of Section 3.5? MR. ODA: No. The definition of vacancy probably can be included under definitions under Section 13-1. Did I pass out the definition of vacancy last time? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Yes. MR. ODA: Oh, I made it revised. MR. OMONAKA: Why don ' t you change that around so that.,f_o.r the remainder of the disability. . .the guy can bounce back. If it is a four year term, he can bounce back. He should be entitled to do so. . . . . .you are not making reference to kind of a temporary thing. Under vacancy, I can see, that is a permanent thing you are talking about. We' re not talking about a temporary vacancy. -8- MRS. KOBAYASHI : So you are suggesting that we make no provision for a temporary vacancy? I hate to bring in personalities but for an example, Kawahara' s situation would not apply. . .as a temporary vacancy? His would not have been considered a vacancy. MR. ODA: I think it would be a very difficult thing to define. . . .it would have to be very vague MR. OMONAKA: Stuart, before you go, we have raised the question, impeachment by law. We were questioning that. There is something in there, in the quotes of the statutes? MR. ODA: There is a section in the Hawaii Revised Statutes on that. . . .in the section on impeachment . . . . ADJOURNMENT: At 4:05 p.m. the meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, June 19, 1979 , 2 :oo p.m. , Hawaii County Councilroom, Hawaii County Building, Hilo, Hawaii. Joan Carnett RECORDING SECRETARY -9-