Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHC 1979-06-19 SUBCOMMITTEE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES 3rd Session June 19, 1979 Hilo, Hawaii The third session of the Hawaii County Charter Commission Subcommittee was called to order at 2 : 12 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: This subcommittee is meeting on Article III of the present charter. Since I was absent last week , my understanding is that section 3-2, discussion on that article was mainly deferred, I take it. Was that right? So let ' s take section 3-2, the composition and terms. If I can recall correctly from our first meeting two weeks ago when we left that subject matter on that day, I believe we had more or less come to a general consensus that there was insufficient factual evidence before to take into consideration any specific redistricting other than what is already in existence, namely the four representative districts. And if we attempted to look into any other form of districting as has already been proposed by many, that unfortunately, we do not have the factual evidence before us upon which we can base any other attempt to redistrict the county other than what we do have now presently as far as the State Representative Districts are concerned and I think this is what we have been informed and advised by our legal counsel. Is that correct? MR. ODA: Yes. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Also as I recall that the general consensus at that time was that we would probably like to 'look_ into tyre districting because there has been most input as far districting is concerned, but the problem then comes as to what the number of the council members will be whether we should continue retaining the number nine, or should we alter that number and increase it or decrease it. I think I am correct also in stating that if we are looking into districting right now on the basis of what is presently before us we are somewhat restricted to the five positions as far as districting is concerned. Following again the present State Representative District apportionment, Districts 10 , and 4 would have one and District 2 would have two. Would that be correct in what I stated? MR. ODA: Would you repeat that? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If we are to consider districting we are somewhat limited as far as numbers are concerned since we do have. .we are kind of restricted to the present State Representative Districts. In other words , if we are talking about positions as far as districting is concerned we are somewhat_Iimited to one position for Districts 1 , 3, and 4, and two positions for District 2, as is presently the case in the State Representative apportionment. MR. ODA: As a minimum. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: As a minimum, right. I guess that is where we are right now. There has been a proposal by Mr. Omonaka already that, I don ' t know whether it was in the form of a motion yet but the general proposal during our discussion was that we should have five district positions , two at-large. I think that is where we left it at that time. Just for continuity at this time maybe, Akira, can you tell us why, five and two? As far as you are concerned, why it should be sufficient. MR. OMONAKA: Well, as' we went around throughout the island taking testimony, there was a strong sentiment for at least some form of a strict district representation at the county council level. So if we use the current five, actually, four house districts, where the second district has two representatives, if we can follow that with five councilmen elected by district, that district, then we can get two council- men running at-large. I strongly believe that 7 councilmen is enough in terms of running our county council. We've had testimony to that effect by members of the county council and others. So I feel that 7 councilmen is enough to run this county. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Does anyone else have any other feelings? MR. SAKATA: Akira, this kind of puzzles me. You talk about five and two- at-large. Five from the districts, right? When we come to the area of terms and length of service we are strictly going to go 4 years? -2- MR. OMONAKA: Yes, well, I would like to see a four year term for everybody. MR. SAKATA: Everybody. MR. OMONAKA: In terms of procedure, Mr. Chairman, how would you like to proceed? Discuss everything in general? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I think so. For subcommittee purposes, I think if we just open it up generally I think it would be much easier. It is small enough, I think, so that we can handle it that way. MR. OMONAKA: Yes, and in terms of the length of the term, we have heard testimony even from the people that serve on the county council , that there is no way in two years that that person can become knowledgable and be an effective councilman. Four years would be more in tune to having an effective councilman. So this is the reason I favor a four year term. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Gloria, how do you feel? MRS. KOBAYASHI : About length of terms? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Length of term? Numbers? Anything. MRS. KOBAYASHI: Well , numbers is all right. I still think that if you run at-large you should have four year terms. If you run district, I think it is going to be less economical. I know the last time we talked about it we said well , if you are going to run for office you should have your personal affairs all settled and all that. But, I think there is testimony in the minutes for both ways and-,At has not been overwhelming one way or the other do agree with Akira when he says that it takes four years for the councilmen to learn how to do their job. However. . . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: How about you, Kimiaki , how do you feel? MR. SAKATA: The thing that puzzles me is that you know we are talking so much about , and many of them have mentioned, staggered terms. In other words, every four years we are going to have an election to retain the councilmen or not and if we are going on a staggered term basis, on afour year term, are we going to go into this from the standpoint of the number of votes they receive or how are we going to get into the staggered terms? Or aren' t we going into staggered terms? Are we going strictly a four year term and turnover like we have at present? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What would you suggest, as far as you are concerned? -3- MR. SAKATA: Well I know the fiasco we went through in the last county council and I think this is the reason why many of them have testified to the fact that they would like to have a staggered term so they would have some continuity as far as the council members are concerned. If you are going to have a real great change,__-over, like we did with these present councilmen all our problems that we noticed and we` heard about, I think we have to look into this from the standpoint of how we are going to keep continuity in the council so that we have some retention of people in the council. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Do you want to add anything more, Akira? MR. OMONAKA: No, except that I have got to admit that in terms of staggering terms it is going to be a nightmare. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Basilic), do you have anything you would like to say? MR. YAGONG: I would go with the four year term. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Anyway, my feeling is, I know wehave had a lot of testimony. .in fact, I think one of the issues that has been brought up is to economize as far as the county expenditure is concerned, and, therefore, I think this is :one o=f_ the reasons why I think people have been suggesting that maybe as far as council positions, there should be a reduction in positions from the 'present nine. I personally feel that nine is a good number. Instead of just having two at-large, somehow I just feel that that two at-large position is insufficient. Consequently, this is why I feel that we should, instead of changing the number of our council positions, I think we should maintain that number and make the at-large positions four. One of the reasons I feel this way is we are talking about district representation and we also have heard in testimony, arguments saying, well one argument against at-large representation is that well where the population center can control candidates. I can see philosophically, mathematically, maybe that may be possible, it may not happen. But we can take that into consideration and use a_residency requirement to even this representation as far as the at-large position is concerned. Like our present setup where we have all these six different districts, they all run at-large but they are residents from specific districts, I feel that maybe if it is at all possible that at the at-large positions we can set residence requirements --in other words, two from East Hawaii and two from West Hawaii. I take that position mainly because I feel , personally, they should be staggered terms. At least, if we have nine we' ll have five one year and four the other, and we can split the at-large, two and two. If we do set residence requirements then of course we can alternate the at-large positions on basis of the residency. We have some initial problems as far as the district representation is concerned of -4- which district would be for the short term and which district would be running for the long term. But if that would be the concern , I can see possibly we can devise some type of formula whereby we can take into consideration what the candidate which receives the highest proportional vote as related to the registered voters within the specific district and compare it to all the other districts and that maybe the two or three highest can be given four year terms and the other two, two year terms. As far as the at-large one, why I think that would be the easiest, if you use residency requirements then you pick the 'highest vote getters from each residence then they would get the four year term and the other would get a two year term. I can ' t see too much: problem as far as the at-large position is concerned but I can see maybe there would be some touchy situations as far as district, but I think it could be worked out. I don ' t feel that there is a necessity to make a change as far as from nine to seven. I feel that if nine is workable and the way it has been running, I think it is sufficient, it is a good number. And it is a workable number and i think we should maintain that nine. That ' s how I feel. MR. OMONAKA: Richard, with regard to your proposal , people that are coming from a district, are you proposing they go at two year terms or four years? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Four years. I feel everybody should be four year terms. Only initially, how you are going to split the thing to try to get the staggered term working, there would be two or three serving the two year term. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Is there a campaign -spending limit under the charter? MR. ODA: On the state level. MRS. KOBAYASHI : For state elections. What about county? MR. ODA: No. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Could we put something in the charter to limit spending? MR. ODA: I 'm not sure that we can. I will have to look at the campaign spending in our statutes. I think it is probably--my off the cuff opinion is that it is probably intended to, the state law is probably intended to control all elections, just like the election laws, in order to have a uniform policy throughout the state. I would doubt that we have any authority to change the state statutes in any way. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Then the county elections would be guided by the state statute. MR. ODA: Right. I 'm not absolutely sure. It ' s just off the cuff. It may apply only to state offices. -5- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Any remarks to what I said? MR. SAKATA: In a way, I agree with Richard ' s proposal here of nine. The thing that still bothers me is if we are going on a four year basis and we are talking about staggered terms and how we are going to figure this thing out so that we can have some continuity. But if you go on a two year base for district representatives and then if we have four year for the at-large then we won ' t be too bad. It ' s easy to have.astaggered kind of situation. If we go strictly on a four year term thenwe will have to work out some kind of a formula as he said. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The formula I was thinking of as far as the district representives are concerned is the proportional thing, the number of votes per received as it applies to the number of registered voters within that specific district. The highest percentage would be granted the longer terms and other than that I cannot--if that is no good, I see no alterna- tive. I can ' t think of any alternative that would be fair. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Of the five equal running districts, would that be four year terms? . . . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I would like to see three two year terms. In other words, give the first two staggered terms, at least we' ll have five positions coming up for election. That ' s only an arbitrary position , you know. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Five and four are nine. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes. MRS. KOBAYASHI : You talk about your nine. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What I am trying to do is have at-large representation that would represent., . So there won ' t be four coming from one area. The present three at-large positions, they are all from Hilo, are they not? So maybe if we have four at-large then I think it ' s not ridiculous for me to assume that there is a high possibility that four may come from Hilo because in any other district may not want to run for that kind of position. Unless we place some kind of a residence_ requirement. MRS. KOBAYASHI : When I add it up, Kona still will have--where we have nine councilmen, two at-large, seven councilmen, two at-large, Kona still is not going to have the same as Hilo. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: No. I don ' t think right nowthat should .. ' be true anyway. What we want to do is I think we are trying to make a district representation so when you come down to that, in esS ence, Hilo is still the more populated area so you know this should be. . . . -6- MRS. KOBAYASHI : . . .even if ten years from now Kona has a greater population. . . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Well , we are assuming that ten years from now the 2nd representative district will have two. We don ' t know that. We are assuming that. I 'm just looking at it if there happens to be a sudden overshift then I think we are back to the problem again which I don ' t think one district should be able to control and this is why I interjected the possibility of the residence requirements which might help in that respect. Another thing I should have mentioned as far as the nine is concerned is. .this will not be applicable to Hilo, the District 2. .if wehave four at-large, theoretically each citizen in this county would be represented by a majority. If we have seven, not counting District 2, the most a person is being represented is three. Theoretically speaking, this is so. . .even assuming all four at-large, if we have no residence requirement, do come from Hilo. At least they have to seek the votes of the entire island. Therefore, the guy in Milolii still is represented--has a direct voice in five positions, which has then become the majority. MR. OMONAKA: This has been the biggest complaint about the representation on the council at Ka' u and especially in Kona. And you can say theoretically they represent that but the people who have been living under this system don ' t feel that way. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Our present system. MR. OMONAKA: That ' s right. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: There has been a real argument against it. Of course there have been some Kona people who came out and said the present system is the better system. . .at least he can speak to all the council. MR. OMONAKA: At least their testimony, the two that spoke- up in Kona, did testify that they should have some kind of a district representation. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Right. MR. OMONAKA: If we don ' t have consensus in this committee, Mr. Chairman , what would be the procedure? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: My feeling is this, this is not a binding committee, anyway, this is only to come out with recommendations. If the issue as far as-- because reapportion- ment is a very major issue, I think maybe we should, assuming there are not other positions to come out, I think we should present it to the body as a whole and let ' s bring all the pros-and-cons against it. Let ' s assume we do recommend the seven positions. . . -7- MR. OMONAKA: It may be turned around. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes. i don ' t think the whole body is bound by it. It' s not a yes or no for them to reject it or accept it. The body should be allowed to bring up. . . . If there are no other drastic positions, I think maybe that is what we should do, otherwise we can go around and around. But maybe we should try to get into maybe the term of office or staggered terms, try to settle that issue if we can. I don ' t think those two issues really affect whether we should be five, four or five, two. I- may be wrong. I 'm trying to think it out. I don ' t think it really makes any difference. MR. SAKATA: Maybe the best thing to do is bring out these recommendations to the body because we have six other commissioners that have to have a voice in this too so we have to really toss this around. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What about term of years? Two years as opposed to four years? Or a hybrid like the district, two, and the at-large, four? Do you want to leave that open too? Or do you want to come up with a recommendation to that? MR. OMONAKA: Why don ' t we start with numbers then? The figure of nine was tossed out. Seven was tossed out. Any other number? So then the next thing would be then if we favor a district or a pure at-large. Again, there is some sentiment for a district as well as some at-large. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: As far as these committee members are concerned, is there any other feeling other than the fact that we should have district or . should we go strictly at-large like we do have now? MR. OMONAKA: No, there have been too many testimonies for district representation all over. CHAIRMAN ISHI_DA: And so if we go to district representation, I think, again we are_restricted as to what type of district we are right now, so I think we are stuck, we are limited to the representative district. MR. OMONAKA: We kind of agreed the last time that the only thing that we can use would be the present house district. I guess the only thing we can recommend is five from the house district at this point. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, recommend five and say well , at-large or anything, that is in the air. MR. OMONAKA: Two or four. . .Term. Gloria had a two and four. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: So I think we should present that--those positions too then. -8- MRS. KOBAYASHI : If we have two year terms then we would not need to have them staggered. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I would agree with you if the terms are two years for any position then the necessity for staggered terms is not there. I ' ll go along with that. MR. OMONAKA: I can go along with that too. It ' s hard to stagger that four year term. MR. SAKATA: If we have two years , then staggering them is going to be easy but if you have four years for every councilman you are going to have a problem. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Then as far as this section 3-2 then would I be correct to say that to present what we have just discussed to the commission as a whole? I mean there is no real true position but as far as the district, at-large, the numbers, terms, staggered, we just present those issues as we have discussed among us. Because I think it is going to come up anyway, no matter what position this committee takes. MR. OMONAKA: Well , my idea of this committee was to kind of. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, centralize it. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Do we have to discuss the reapportionment. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Okay, we can come back to that after we. . . let ' s get this part through. I 'm ready for a motion. MR. OMONAKA: i so move, Mr. Chairman. As the Chairman so described. MR. SAKATA: I second it. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The motion was that what we had already discussed previous as to what the issues are as far as the districting, the term of the office, the number, at-large number and staggered. It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye? Opposed, nay? Carried. Shall we take up a reapportionment commission? You folks didn ' t discuss that last time, did you? What would you like to say about the reapportionment commission? MR. ODA: There was a handout last week. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Do you folks all have the handout? Is this based upon the provision to the Honolulu Charter? MR. ODA: Basically, yes. -9- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Where is the difference, if any? MR. ODA: I don ' t remember, already. 1981 and every ten years different. Honolulu has. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Every eight years. MR. ODA: Eight years. i could check right away. The Honolulu one says the year 1973 and every eighth year shall be reapportionment years. I guess 1973 and eight years after that will be 1981 and under number two, the difference is that Honolulu says first day of July rather than ours which says February. The reason why we put February was because we have to give the commission enough time to work out a plan. If we make it in July it may not be enough time for 1982 elections. Commissions shall consist of--Honolulu has nine members. I left that blank because it is up to this board to determine how many members. Basically, the rest of the items are the same with the Honolulu provision.`. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I notice the Honolulu provision allows the council to appoint the members of their apportionment commission. MR. ODA: The presiding chairman of the. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The mayor has no say, whatso- ever. . . . MR. ODA: That ' s right. Actually, that another change that we made. The reason why that we changed it and said that the members shall be selected by the mayor rather than by the chairman of the council was because if you let the council chairman select the members of the commission they would have the power to determine who will reapportion his own body and we thought that that might be bad. We might have a mayor who would not be affected by reapportionment to select the commission members but confirmed by the council so at least the council has some say in it. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: In reviewing these provisions which I notice also in the Honolulu provision that the determination made by the commission becomes final. I don ' t know, it ' s just my first reaction that I just. . .is that constitutional? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Didn ' t we say when we were first talking about the commission, that they wouldn ' t be able to change the original number we set up? MR. ODA: Under number seven , we have the commission may apportion the existing council seats among the districts and redraw district lines. That is basically their duty. The purpose of the commission. MRS. KOBAYASHI : They couldn ' t change the numbers we set up. -10- MR. OMONAKA: Until such time as this reapportionment committee do so. .and if we have this in the charter and they are authorized to do it, they can? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: They can change the numbers? MR. OMONAKA: No, not the numbers, but boundaries. Not numbers. MR. ODA: Boundaries, right. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What if we do have districts and at-large as we have been discussing? Does that mean that they have authority to reduce the at-large seat? MR. ODA: No. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: In other words, they just have five positions. If they are going to redraw district lines they just have to redraw the five positions. MR. OMONAKA: We can use the house districts, but if we do lose the house position then we are in trouble. So this would be good. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, I guess so. If we just limit it to five, so we still have whatever at-large. . . . MR. ODA: I would suggest that if you folks want to you fill in the blanks over here as a suggestion to the commission. This is based on the most recent federal census. MR. OMONAKA: Will that census be available by 1981? The census figures? MR. ODA: I sure hope so. It takes quite awhile before those figures come back: MR. OMONAKA: So why don ' t we move it up to 1982? Then we have it. MR. ODA: If we make it in 1982. Let ' s say in January of 1982, they would have to have it ready by the middle of the year before the election. MR. OMONAKA: If theydon ' t have those official figures there is no way they can cut it. . . . 19832 We still will have the present house members. MR. ODA: Maybe 1981 is a little too soon. Yes, 1983 and every ten years. MR. OMONAKA: We have a charter review every ten years. It would be just right, just inbetween. -11- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Nobody knows when the census comes out, do they? MR. ODA: I think it took about a year. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The census is taken about the middle of the year? Fall? MR. ODA: Do you want to change it to 1983? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Okay, let ' s put it to 1983 then because it is going to be too late to affect the 1982 election, right? MR. OMONAKA: Right. 1983. MR. OMONAKA: How about eleven members? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If as; we have the number nine position , the actions of this committee would be final , then I would like to see more input. The way it is now, their decision just needs to filed and it is effective. MR. OMONAKA: Can we write into this reappor- tionment section where we make it a requirement that the districting becomes final? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: It is number 9. It says that. Paragraph 9. How about 11, then? _Counsel, - on this Honolulu one it says something about compensation. Do you have that in there also? Or did you take that out? MR. ODA: That is already covered under the general clause on board members. We cannot compensate this commission and not compensate the others. That ' s under Section 13-4 (g) members shall receive no compensation but shall be reimbursed for necessary expenses. Boards and commissions. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Systematically, let ' s go down to paragraph 3 of the proposal. Are there any questions or any modifications? If not, how about paragraph 4? No member of the commission shall be ';.eligible to become a candidate for election to the council in the first election held under any reapportionment plan adopted by the commission. No, nothing? Then how about five? Administrative things. Okay. Number six? MR. OMONAKA: Coming back to number 6, will this tie their hands interms of going outside of the county to get help? Hiring an attorney, or something like that? To hire an attorney or. . .why don ' t we just change it so that the commission is authorized to spend whatever is necessary to do their work? MR. ODA: Why not add after the word duties, counselshallappropriate funds to enable the commission to carry out its duties including the hiring of necessary staff. -12- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Okay. How about six? No problems there? Seven? MRS. KOBAYASHI : What does it mean when it says, as nearly as possible, represent a similar number of persons? The present representative districts are not drawn like that. MR. OMONAKA: Would it be safe to just say, as required by law? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Another thing, too, you know, I have a question here. . .The way it is drafted now doesn ' t it somewhat restrict it so that it has to be a single member district? In other words , the present two in District 2, will not be allowed under this provision. MR. ODA: If this is too restrictive, after the words "when necessary" as suggested , "according to law" and then, "based upon the most recent federal census. " Delete "in such manner that each councilman would , as nearly as possible, represent a similar number of persons as in every other district in the county. " MRS. KOBAYASHI : How would it read? MR. ODA: "The commission may apportion the existing council seats among the districts and redraw the district lines where and when necessary according to law,based upon the most recent federal census. " In other words , using the federal census as the guide. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: A technical question , the word "may"? The commission may. Does the use of that word there infer that they need not do it? Do any apportionment? MR. ODA: You mean no need to change? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: What I am saying is , assuming the census clearly shows a shift in population center on this island , does it require, does this provision as it is written require the commission to make an apportionment? Or can it say, no we don ' t want to make any change? MR. ODA: Well , I think it is implied that they have to. You want to use the word, shall? No big deal . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I don ' t know whether shall puts us in trouble or not. MR. ODA: On the other hand, shall mandates a change. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I know. -13- MR. OMONAKA: Well , I think the "may" is qualified by "where and when necessary. " CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, maybe you are right there. Maybe that would make it very clear. MR. OMONAKA: Stuart, do we need that last sentence of the last line there, "based upon the most recent federal census"? It has been known that the county municipal districts have been drawn up by registered voters also. MR. ODA: Yes , that is the reason why. There are several cases that held that use of registered voters as a base of redrawing lines has been unconstitutional. The reason why we put based upon the most recent federal census, we want to make it absolutely clear that it is based on population and not on registered voters. MR. OMONAKA: How is the current house district now drawn up? By registered voters? MR. ODA: I think that system right now is., If somebody challenges it, it may be struck down. We ran across several cases on the mainland that held using anything other than population is more than likely unconstitutional . The fact that some provisions are in state law, doesn ' t mean that it is valid because nobody challenges it. It is presumed valid until somebody challenges it. We did run across , surprisingly,, some cases on that that held registered voters to be an inproper method. MR. OMONAKA: So then the words "according to law" should suffice. MR. ODA: In a broad sense. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I can see one problem. What Akira is saying there is that what if we have our own census? It could be just as valid, could it not? If the county had conducted their own census? Does it have to be a federal census? Could it not be another census? I think what Akira is saying is - maybe this is too restrictive. MR. OMONAKA: If we just end it "according to law. " MR. ODA: The concern I have is that in 1983 or at any time thereafter maybe that point will be totally overlooked as to what basis it is suppose to use. I don ' t think there is any basis to say that using population under federal census is wrong. That is something: I ` don ' t think would ever be challenged away. You are counting heads according to the heads that are available. This all goes back to the original concept of one-man, one-vote. -14- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Could we not maybe qualify that last phrase? What I am saying. is the way it is written they are mandated to use a federal ,eensus, not giving them an alternative. MR. ODA: Based upon a most recent federal census or other valid population guide, or whatever. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Something like that. In other words, giving them an alternative instead of being just restrictive to the federal census. In other words, I think maybe we can say "use" the federal census if it is available. MR. OMONAKA: Maybe this reapportionment committee wants to go and get its own census. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: True. Maybe the system used by Hawaiian Electric is valid. MR. ODA: Isn ' t the reason why we moved it to 1983 was to take advantage of the census? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Right. Again, you know, we are depending on another government agency waiting for the census to come out. MR. ODA: If you want to just leave it"according to law" I have a feeling in 1983 when the reapportionment commission meets they are going to say, what does that mean? I can almost see it. MR. OMONAKA: They will have to read the minutes. MR. ODA: Like "impeachment according to law" none of us knew what that was until somebody started asking questions. MR. OMONAKA: Why don ' t we just say that "based upon the most recent federal and other acceptable census"? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Or other acceptable means. Let me ask you, you say that there are cases now that question registered voters , is it possible in something like this that registered voters may be held valid? MR. ODA: I suppose so, though the main reason why registered voters was held unconstitutional was the fact that those in power on those specific hearings on the mainland had gone out to register voters in campaigns, for example, to get voters registered. Just so that their party-10r their group, or whatever could prevail and those less educated less aware of things , less organized never bothered to register and yet they comprise the majority of the people in the county or in the city and they were disenfranchised. And to use registered voters on that- basis is clearly not representative of the population but only a special elite group who are actually not representing the entire population. -15- MRS. KOBAYASHI : Couldn ' t you use voters along with the federal census? Wouldn ' t you get a better picture of how things are if you used the census plus the registered voters? "Based upon the most recent federal census and registered voter list. " How do you say it? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Could we say, "based upon but not limited to the most recent federal census"? MR. ODA: Fine. MR. OMONAKA: Start that all over? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Based upon but not limited to. . . MR. ODA: Based upon but not necessarily limited to. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Right. MR. ODA: In 'other words , it could be limited to. . .okay, "The commission may apportion the existing council seats among the districts and redraw district lines where and when necessary according to law based upon , but not necessarily limited to, the most recent federal census. " CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: How is that? I think that is salable. How about paragraph 7, subparagraphs a, b, and c? Any comments to those provisions? Paragraph 8? What number were you thinking about , Stuart? In paragraph 8? MR. ODA: I 'm thinking of at least 6 months. MR. SAKATA: Under 80 days. MR. ODA: Under 80 days? The Honolulu one, the commission is constituted in July and that commission is mandated by before January 2 of the year following appointment the commission shall file a reapportionment plan. But that is the final one. Six months. So this one here can be lesser or whatever. Number 9, also. We added number 8, which is a proposed reapportionment because. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: How about 120 :days? MR. ODA: For which one? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Number 8. MRS. KOBAYASHI : And there would have to be a public hearing after they. . . ? MR. ODA: Yes. The Honolulu one doesn ' t even permit that. There is no public hearing. They just in 6 months they file a reapportionment plan with the county clerk and that is it. Which is effective upon filing. So ours is extremely fair. -16- MR. OMONAKA: Do we need to go into a public hearing for this if the commission is designed to do something strictly by law? MR. ODA: I think we have to be sensitive to the concerns of the public. MR. OMONAKA: So how many days? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I like 120,-days. MR. ODA: I think it is only fair. MR. SAKATA: Then we will go on 120. days base then? Four months. MR. ODA: Four months for the preliminary apportionment plan and maybe the next one. . . let ' s see the public hearing has to be held within a month and a half of the four month period. So that means 165 days will have gone by, right? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: After the last public hearing you are giving them what, two months? MR. ODA: There is four months plus a month and a half ,that:' s five and a half months after the public hearing:.' The last possible date would be five and a half months after the public hearing. How much time does the commission need after that. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Forty-five days after the last public hearing? That ' s'a month and a half. MR. ODA: That is 210 days. No later than the last day of August. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Wouldn ' t you have to qualify that last day of which August? MR. ODA: Of the reapportionment year. Is my calculation correct. They are convening the first day of February and we take four months, February, March, April , May. They should have the, proposed reapportionment plan published in the newspaper. They have a month and a half to hold the public hearings. Five and a half months. So the end of August would be about seven months. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: So you would add on number 9, no later than the last day of August of the reapportionment year. MR. ODA: The commission shall publish the final reapportionment plan in the newspapers no later than the last day of August. The calendar might be a little squeezed on that. Maybe we should give them a little more time on that? -17- J CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The last day of September? Actually, there is no rush. What is the purpose of number 10? MR. ODA: Number 10 sets the statutes limitation period. Challenging the reapportionment plan so that it doesn ' t frustrate any election that follows in the following year. The Honolulu charter has 45? Well , it is up to you folks, do you want to increase it to 30? MRS. KOBAYASHI : If I wanted to challenge the -I-_,would` take it to court? MR. ODA: Yes , you would sue me. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Any difficulty in the 15 days? MRS. KOBAYASHI : How is this going to be published? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: General circulation. MR. SAKATA: Honolulu has 45 days? CHAIRMAN ;ISHIDA: Do you want 30 days? Okay, on this reapportionment proposal , paragraph 1 , 1981 has been changed to 1983. Paragraph 2, 11 members. Paragraph 3, as is. Paragraph 4, as is. Paragraph 5 , after duties add including the hiringof necessary staff. Paragraph 6, as is. Paragraph 7, reads the commission may apportion the existing council seats among the districts and redraw the district lines where and when necessary according to law based upon, but not necessarily limited to, the most recent federal census. " Otherwise, as is. Paragraph 8, 120 days. Paragraph 9, September of the reapportionment year. And paragraph 10 , 30 days. Any other possible modifications? MR. ODA: The section with which this one would be numbered. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Where would it be placed? MR. ODA: It has to be in Article III. MR. OMONAKA: It should come right after 3-2. MR. ODA: I would think that would be a most appropriate place. It has to be a separate section. #3-3 and the rest of the numbers , renumbered. MR. SAKATA: Section 3-3? MR. ODA: Yes. -18- CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I entertain a motion to adopt the proposal as modified. MR. SAKATA: So move. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Any further discussion? All in favor, aye? Carried. Now, last week , did you folks go to 3-3? MR. ODA: The change was two years residency to one year and 90 days in the district preceeding the primary election or his appointment. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: That is the only modification on that one? MR. ODA: There is some language there in the last two sentences which is already covered in the definition of a vacancy. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: You deleted that, right? MR. ODA: So there is really no need for those. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Didn ' t you folks delete: it? MR. ODA: It was deferred , I think. The last two sentences under 3-3? If you want to leave it in you can. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Well , you folks said hold in abeyance until the definition of vacancy was taken up again. MR. ODA: Yes,we adopted those things in the vacancy definition so nothing was actually done on it. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Actually, we should delete it, then. Because it is already covered in vacancy. MR. OMONAKA: Covered under vacancy. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: A motion to that effect? MRS. KOBAYASHI : I so motion. MR. OMONAKA: Second. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I would delete the last two sentences of the present section 3-3 which will now be numbered 3-4. All in favor, aye? Carried. Now section 3-4 which is now 3-5 . .you people retained it, right? It was all right as is. Okay, then the present 3-5 should be deleted then? -19- MR. OMONAKA: No. That stays. Only thing the vacancy would be added to Article XIII. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: So 3-5 is now 3-6 and is to remain asds, right? 3-6, that stays as is? What did you add? hIR. ODA: As provided by this charter rather than as provided by law. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11 , 3-12 , 3-13 these are all strictly procedural things as far as the council is concerned and I don ' t think there are any changes in those sections, right? MR. OMONAKA: Except that I believe the County Clerk had a recommendation, a minor one, under 3-8 he wanted on routine matters, rather than go by roll call . . .i guess you can leave it in. He thought that would be cumbersome on routine matters to go roll call on those routine items. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: How would they modify it? MR. OMONAKA: I guess you can leave it. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Leave it. 3-14, adoption of pay plan. Is there a necessity for any change on that 3-14? MR. OMONAKA: The collective bargaining? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Actually, we could leave it as is. MR. ODA: I would say so. All these collective bargaining agreements would have to be incorporated and established by ordinance, anyway. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: 3-15 , county code. House- keeping is part of the first sentence, within two years after the effective date of this charter. MR. OMONAKA: We can delete this "within two years after the effective date of this charter"? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Why don ' t we just delete this phrase but leavethe other portion in giving them authority to do it? MR. ODA: They already did it. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, but maybe there needs to be revisions. -20- MR. OMONAKA: If this has already been done by the county, is this section necessary? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: And thereafter by ordinance they can do it, right? MR. ODA: Right. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Then we can delete 3-15 , the present 3-15 . Then how about 3-16, the general plan? MR. ODA: This is where in my comments last week to the planning department section , I suggested to 'over the section on general plan amendments that subsection (c) be added on page 7 to say that amendments to the general plan may be initiated by the council or planning director. Right now, they only may be initiated by the planning director. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Based upon the ordinance. This present provision just says the council shall adopt. It doesn ' t say initiate. MR. ODA: That ' s right. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: How would (c) read? MR. ODA: Amendments to the general plan may be initiated by the council or planning director. That way there will be no controversy as to who may initiate. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Any questions on that modification? Okay. There is one more provision that has to be brought up and I suppose it affects 3-7. Gloria reminded me of the separate counsel provision for the county council. Separate legal counsel. Maybe I should ask a general question. As far as this committee is concerned, in view of the input that has been presented, is there anyone who fee:1s that separate legal counsel for the county council is not necessary? MR. OMONAKA: The only question comes then is who will be the legal county attorney? Representing the council? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA° I would say it is the corporation counsel. We should make it clear at that time. I would think the counsel for the county council would be restricted and strictly limited to council matters. MR. ODA: I can suggest that the council may hire a legal counsel and the necessary staff to advise the council and the said counsel and staff shall be, their duties shall be confined to council matters. MR. OMONAKA: You know, Rudy suggested that the County Clerk ' s position can become an attorney' s position. -21- Is there any real requirement for the county council to have an attorney on a year-round basis? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: I think the council members feel there is because as I understand their comments that they are continually faced with going to corporation counsel for legal advice. They feel because the corporation counsel really is the administrative legal counsel that there is clearly a conflict possible when their views related to a specific issue between the administration and the county council. MRS. KOBAYASHI : I like the word "may" you used instead of shall. Another council might not feel the necessity of having a legal counsel and if we put in "shall" they will have to. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: But as far as general consideration does this committee feel the necessity to have such a provision within Article III? MR. OMONAKA: Yes, I think so, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If that would be the consensus of this committee then I would suggest that we ask legal counsel to draft the provision to cover that, unless legal counsel can to it right now. MR. OMONAKA: Under subparagraph (c) . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: It would be a subparagraph (c) under that 3-7, now 3-8. MR. OMONAKA: Is there a motion necessary? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Yes, I think I will call for a general motion because after 3-7.. . . MR. OMONAKA: 3-8. That is going to be renumbered to 8. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: No, the renumbered 3-7, there was a motion up to that time, up to that provision, from last week , right, on that 3-7? From the present 3-7 which will be renumbered 3-8 I don ' t think any action has been taken yet. So 3-7 would be 3-8. Then 3-8 will be 9. 3-9 will be 10. 3-10 will be 11 . 3-11 will be 3-12. 3-13 will 3-14. 3-14 will be 3-15 . The present 3-15 will be deleted and the present 3-16 will remain 3-16 with an addition of subparagraph (c) amendment to general plan may be initiated by this council or the planning director. Going back to the renumbered 3-8 we will then add a subparagraph (c) which will then provide for the authorization of county council to hire its own legal counsel provision yet to be drafted by our legal counsel. -22- MR. OMONAKA: I so move to that, Mr. Chairman. MR. SAKATA: I second. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: It has been moved and seconded that the renumbered sections 3-8 through 3-16 and the modifi- cations thereof be approved. Now, discussion. Gloria? MRS. KOBAYASHI : I found that provision and what Rudy said about the ayes and noes of roll call vote and what his change was. It ' s on page 4, Section 3-9. Meetings and Rules and Journal. Second paragraph "voting, except on proce- dural motions, shall be by roll call . . . " and Rudy wanted it to say "in which the ayes and noes shall be entered as required by this charter or at any other time upon the demand of any member. This gives the county council the option of having a roll call vote or not. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: In other words, you are saying that no roll call vote would be necessary unless requested or demanded by one of the members. Akira, do you recall what was in that discussion? MR. OMONAKA: Assuming the county council adopt a simple resolution a simple aye and nay vote would suffice but they would have to go through this cumbersome roll call system which the charter now provides so Rudy was suggesting that on routine matters like that it should be just an aye and no vote. MRS. KOBAYASHI : Section 3-9 , second paragraph, delete the first sentence /.Voting, except on procedural motions, shall be by roll call and the ayes and noes shall be recorded in the journal . . .7 and add to the last sentence of the first paragraph . . .The Council shall determine its rules and order of business and shall provide for keeping a journal of its proceedings, which shall be a public record in which the ayes and noes shall be entered as required by this charter or at any other time upon the demand of any member. So the entire section becomes one paragraph with the last sentence of the first paragraph connecting the second paragraph. I am suggesting that we adopt the County Clerk ' s recommendation to allow for the .aye and no vote. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The substance of the change is_ all votes need not be roll call except when requested by any member of the council. MR. ODA: What is the suggested wording? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: The suggested wording is at the end of the first paragraph you continue with this language in which the ayes and noes shall be entered as required by this charter or at any other time upon tyle-demand of any_ member. -23- Then you would delete the first sentence of the second paragraph. The second paragraph would then begin with "The affirmative vote of a majority. . . " MR. ODA: Read the "in which the ayes and noes shall" what? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Shall be--in which the ayes and noes shall be entered as required by this charter or at any other time upon the demand of any member. Is there a second to Gloria' s motion? MRS. KOBAYASHI : It' s an amendment to the motion , right? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Right. We' ll consider it an amendment. Is there a second'_to Gloria' s motion to amend Akira' s motion? Sorry, Gloria, your motion died for lack of second. Any other discussion? MR. ODA: So what happened to that? CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: It died. We still have a motion before the committee. The motion is Akira' s motion to adopt the revisions of the new numbered sections 3-8 through 3-16 as modified. All with the qualifications that the provision for ;Section --3-8, subparagraph (c) is yet to be drafted by you concerniing the legal counsel for the county council. MR. ODA: I have a suggestion for a draft. . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Why don ' t you look it over a little more so that all the bases are covered. . . MR. ODA: Well , let me just read the suggestion, okay? The council may hire legal counsel and necessary staff to advise the council. Its duties and compensation shall be specified by ordinance. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: You are getting away with general language. Would that meet the requirements? MR. ODA: The only hangup I have on this is if you go to mandate the council to hire a legal staff, I mean if you want that you may have to mandate it because politics is going to come into the picture. Right now they already have the authority. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: But it is not explicit, right? They are saying it is not explicit, I think. MR. ODA: They already have the authority to create a legal staff if they want. The county council is a legislative body by ordinance they could create it. So if you use the word may. . . -24- • MRS. KOBAYASHI : You are not doing anything. MR. ODA: You ' re not doing anything. You either mandate it or you don ' t. I mean in a situation like that it is just going to be a football that is going to be thrown back and forth. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Why shouldn ' t this permissive- =ness:; be sufficient? It becomes very clear then that they have the authority. I think the problem now is they don ' t know whether they have the authority, which doesn ' t make sense. MR. ODA: Well , we will draft a. . . . CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: You' ll redraft it. Okay, so we still have a motion before the committee. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, aye? Opposed? We pass. I think we have completed our portion as mandated by the commission so unless there is anything else I entertain a motion that we adjourn and report to the commission as a whole. MR. OMONAKA: I so move. MR. SAKATA: Second. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: All in favor? Passed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. .an Carnett CORDING SECRETARY -25- REAPPORTIONMENT AND REAPPORTIONMENT YEARS • 1. The year 1981 and every tenth year thereafter shall be reapportionment years . 2. A reapportionment commission shall be constituted on or before the first day of February of each reapportionment year and whenever reapportionment is required by court order. The commission shall consist of members . The commission members no more than a majority of whom shall belong to the same political party, shall be representative of the various geographical areas of the county and shall be selected by the Mayor and confirmed by the counci-l. The commission shall elect a chairman from among its members . 3. Any vacancy shall be filled in the. same manner as for an original appointment within fifteen (15) days after the vacancy occurs. 4. No member of the commission shall be eligible to become a 'candidate for election to the council in the first election held under any reapportionment plan adopted by the commission. 5 . The County Clerk, under the direction of the commission, shall furnish all necessary technical and secretarial services. The council shall appropriate funds to enable the commission to carry out its duties. 6 . The commission shall act by majority vote of its membership and shall establish its own procedures , except as may be provided for in this charter. 7. The commission may apportion the existing council seats among the districts and redraw the district lines where and when necessary in such manner that each councilman would, as nearly as possible, represent a similar number of persons as in every other district in the county, based upon the most recent federal census. In effecting such redistricting, the commission shall also be guided by the following criteria: a. No district shall be so drawn as to unduly favor a person, political faction, or special interest group. b. Districts, insofar as practicable, shall be contiguous and compact. c. District lines shall, where possible, follow permanent and easily recognized features, and when practicable, shall coincide with census tract boundaries. 8. Not more than days after the commission is constituted, the commission shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, a proposed reapportionment plan prepared by the commission. At least one public hearing shall be held in each district within forty-five (45) days of initial publication. 9 . No later than the last day of , the commission shall publish a final reapportionment plan in a newspaper of general circulation and shall file such plan with the County Clerk, at which time the plan shall become effective. Members of the commission shall hold office until the reappor- tionment planbecomes effective. 10. Any registered voter may petition the circuit court to compel, by mandamus or otherwise, the appropriate person or persons to perform their duty or to correct any error made in a reapportionment plan, or the court may take such other action to effectuate the purposes of this section as it may deem appropriate. Any such petition must be filed within fifteen (15) days after the filing of a final reapportionment plan.