Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm No 0003.02.01 - Ad Hoc Committee Report - Section 3-2 Composition and Terms of Council MembersCHARTER COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON ARTICLE III SECTION 3-2 October 25, 2018 Page 1 of 3 Committee Members Sally (Sarah) Rice Chair William C. Bergin, DVM Kevin Hopkins Bobbi Jean Leithead-Todd Section 3-2. Composition The members of the Ad Hoc Committee discussed the composition of the Hawaii County Council (i.e., one member elected from each of the 9 districts) and agreed that at this time no changes were required to the composition as it is presently structured. Chairman Adams proposal to clarify the language to elect one member per district is already under consideration. Although this is not a Charter matter, it was commented on that during the 2020 reapportionment process an analysis should be undertaken of the Ka'u Council representation since Ka'u is currently combined with South Kona. Since South Kona has different constituent characteristics than Ka'u, Ka'u might be better represented by inclusion in the Hilo or Puna districts. Section 3-2. Terms The Charter states that "the terms of the Council members shall be two years and ..." A plurality of our committee recommended changing the terms to four years elected on a staggered cycle but retaining the eight-year consecutive term limit (i.e. 2 four-year consecutive terms). There are good arguments for retaining the two-year terms that were discussed: • The main benefit outlined by committee members was the ability to remove a poorly functioning Council person more quickly through the election process with a two-year term. • A two-year term can have the effect of making a Council person pay more attention to the requirements and problems of his/her district since the ensuing election occurs rapidly. • A two-year term can be conducive to more citizen participation with the electorate paying more attention to the quick election cycle, and possibly getting more candidates running for election. 1 Comm. No. 3.2.1 CHARTER COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON ARTICLE III SECTION 3-2 October 25, 2018 Page 2 of 3 The benefits of a four-year election cycle outweighed the benefits of a two-year election cycle for the majority of the committee: • A four-year election cycle allows the Council member time to focus on the district problems and requirements and make headway in finding solutions to them without the distraction of an upcoming election campaign. • A longer term gives the Council person the opportunity to gain experience and focus on his/her job prior to fund raising and planning a campaign. • For Council members elected for the first time, four years gives that person a better opportunity to learn the parliamentary procedures and to gain a more in depth understanding of the issues facing the County at that time. • A Council person may be more confident in taking a position on a controversial issue if he/she is not facing an election within a short time. • The four-year term allows the Council member to focus on long term problem solving rather than quick fixes which may be short lived and costly. • The four-year term encourages the Council person to plan for the future and envision creative, new improvements to Hawaii County. • A four-year election cycle is half as costly for the candidate as a two-year cycle. • A four-year term lessens the almost constant fund raising and preparation for the election campaign required by a two-year cycle. Notes: Our committee did not attempt to calculate the mathematical formula needed for staggered terms. By having staggered terms the Council will always have Council persons retained who are familiar with the ongoing legislative matters. County of Honolulu has four-year terms with staggered election of those Council members. We did not analyze the staggered election formula used by Honolulu. Determining an appropriate and lawful manner to achieve staggered Council Terms will require a substantial amount of consideration and thought by the Commission and its staff. Appropriate in the sense that the Commission will likely have some policymaking authority to choose between potential methods to implement staggered terms; i.e. the Commission may have options at its disposal. Lawful in the sense that any method the Commission decides to incorporate into its proposal should be scrutinized by legal counsel to ensure it would withstand a legal challenge. Staff has been apprised that the Commission may consider one or more proposals to establish staggered Council terms, and as such will research this issue and provide to the Commission its findings to allow the Commission to determine what it believes to be an appropriate approach to stagger Council terms in a lawful manner. 2 CHARTER COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON ARTICLE II SECTION 3-2 October 25, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Our committee discussed not allowing a Council person to run for election after a pause. We decided that it was not beneficial for the County to eliminate someone who wants to be elected to the Council again as that person would have institutionai knowledge and experience that would be an asset on the Council. Because the term issue has been voted on previously and the two-year term retained, our committee requests that there be some publicity of the rationale for a four-year term. in the past the two-year election cycle has appealed to the voters as a way to vote out quickly the Council members that are not responsive to the districts in which they serve, As we have outlined above we would like to educate the voters about the benefits of a four-year term. Attached to this Report are the following items the Ad Hoc Committee utilized in part to form its findings and recommendations: 1. Communication No. 2.1 — Report on Section 3-2 — Council Composition and Terms 2. Council Member Composition and Terms by County 3. Amendment 1 to Section 3-2 — Minutes from 1990 Charter Commission 4. Amendment 2 to Section 3-2 — Minutes from 1995 Council Meetings 5, Amendment 3 to Section 3-2 — Minutes from 2000 Charter Commission On behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to delve into this issue and share our perspective and look forward to further discussion. Sincerely, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Sally Rice Douglass Shipman Adams Chairperson Jennifer Leilani Zelko-Schlueter Vice Chairperson Date: August 27, 2018 2018-2020 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION To: Douglass Shipman Adams, Chair and Members of the Hawai`i County Charter Commission From: Jon Henricks, Commission Analyst Hawai`i County Charter Commission William Carthage Bergin Michelle Galimba Paul K. Hamano Kevin D. Hopkins Bobby Jean Akane Leithead Todd Sarah H. Rice Christopher John Imiloa Roehrig Marcia A.K. Saquing Donna Mae Springer RE: Section 3-2 of the Hawai`i County Charter; Composition and Terms of Council Members QUESTION How has Section 3-2 of the Hawai`i County Charter, which provides for the composition and terms of the Council and its members, been amended since its establishment in the Charter? DISCUSSION Inception: The County Charter, which took effect on January 2, 1969, included Section 3-2, which read as follows: "Section 3-2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members who shall be elected at -large for terms of four years. The terms of councilmen shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. Of the nine members elected to the county council, one shall be a resident of the district of Puna, one a resident of the district of Kau, one a resident of the combined districts of North and South Kona, one a resident of the combined districts of North and South Kohala, one a resident of the district of Hamakua, and one a resident of the combined districts of North and South Hilo. The person charged with the duty of conducting elections in the county shall prepare the nomination papers in such a manner that candidates desiring to Comm. No. 2.1 Page 2 of 5 file for the office of councilman shall be able to specify whether they are seeking the seat with a district residence requirement or the seat with no district residence requirement as the case may be. The ballots for the primary and general elections shall be prepared to give every voter in the county the opportunity to vote for each and every council seat. Candidates shall be nominated and elected in accordance with the election laws of the state." At its inception, Section 3-2 provided for a nine -member County Council with six seats having geographical residency requirements and the remaining three seats without any such residency requirements. The elections for these seats were partisan with true primary and general elections. All voters could vote for all of the nine seats to be filled; i.e. all candidates were "elected at -large". Those elected served for four years, with no term limitations. Amendment No. 1: • Single -member council districts • Term reduction (four to two years) • Reapportionment Commission established Section 3-2 was first amended at the General Election on November 6, 1990, via Proposition 1, as offered by the Charter Commission. Proposition 1 provided for single - member council districts and reduced the council term from four to two years. The amendments are illustrated below in Ramseyer format (material that was repealed is bracketed and stricken; material that was added is underscored): "Section 3- 2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members [who shall be elected at large for terms of four years.] . One member shall be elected from each of nine districts. The terms of [councilmen] the council members shall be two years and shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. [Of the nine members elected to the county district of Kau, one a resident of the combined districts of North and South Kona, one a resident of the combined districts of North and South Kohala, one a resident of the district of Hamakua, and one a resident of the combined districts of North and South Hilo. The person charged with the duty of conducting elections in the county shall prepare the nomination papers in such a manner that candidates desiring to file for the office of requirement as the case may be. The ballots for the primary and general elections shall be prepared to give every voter in the county the opportunity to vote for each and every council seat.] Candidates shall be nominated and elected in accordance with the election laws of the state." Page 3 of 5 Proposition 1 also created a new Section 3-18, titled "Reapportionment Commission" (currently titled Redistricting Commission), which provided for the establishment of council districts, as made necessary pursuant to the transition away from "at -large" council seats. Additionally, in order to accommodate the change from at -large seats and council terms being reduced from four to two years, the following provision was included as part of Proposition 1: SCTION 5, approval anent shall take effect upon it. y the voters. The members of the county council at the time of the approval of this amendment shall serve out their fu'l'l terms The county council to be elected at the regularly scheduled election in 1992 shall be the first to be elected from the nine districts as established by the reapportionment commission. In summary, the partisan election method was retained, whereby true primary and general elections were required to fill each council seat. Term limits were still not in play. The significant change was the move from four to two-year terms and the creation of nine council districts, which in part removed the option for voters to vote for all council candidates, regardless of the geographical area that candidate was to serve. As amended, Section 3-2 read: "Section 3- 2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members. One member shall be elected from each of nine districts. The terms of the council members shall be two years and shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. Candidates shall be nominated and elected in accordance with the election laws of the state." Amendment No. 2: • Term limit Section 3-2 was next amended at the General Election on November 5, 1996, via the contents of Ordinance No. 95-20, as offered by the County Council. Ordinance No. 95-20 limited the number of consecutive terms for council members. The amendments are illustrated below in Ramseyer format (material that was added is underscored): Page 4 of 5 "Section 3- 2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members. One member shall be elected from each of nine districts. The terms of the council members shall be two years and shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. The terms of the council members shall not exceed four consecutive two year terms. Candidates shall be nominated and elected in accordance with the election laws of the state." Ordinance No. 95-20 very simply applied a "term limit" to council seats. No other changes occurred as a result of its approval by the electorate. As amended, Section 3-2 read: "Section 3- 2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members. One member shall be elected from each of nine districts. The terms of the council members shall be two years and shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. The terms of the council members shall not exceed four consecutive two year terms. Candidates shall be nominated and elected in accordance with the election laws of the state." Amendment No. 3 • Nonpartisan elections Section 3-2 was next amended at the General Election on November 7, 2000, via Proposition 1, as offered by the Charter Commission. Proposition 1 established nonpartisan elections. The amendments are illustrated below in Ramseyer format (material that was repealed is bracketed and stricken; material that was added is underscored): "Section 3- 2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members. One member shall be elected from each of nine districts. The terms of the council members shall be two years and shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. The terms of the council members shall not exceed four consecutive two year terms. Candidates shall be [nominated and] elected in accordance with the election laws of the state[-], insofar as applicable." Proposition 1 included amendments to Section 13-27 of the Hawai`i County Charter that, in concert with amendments to Section 3-2, Section 5-1.1, and Section 9-1, created "nonpartisan" elections for all elected officials of the County: Council Members, the Mayor, and the Prosecuting Attorney. Page 5 of 5 As amended, Section 3-2 currently reads: "Section 3- 2. Composition and Terms. There shall be a county council composed of nine members. One member shall be elected from each of nine districts. The terms of the council members shall be two years and shall begin at twelve o' clock meridian on the first Monday of December after their election. The terms of the council members shall not exceed four consecutive two year terms. Candidates shall be elected in accordance with the election laws of the state, insofar as applicable." CLOSING Section 3-2 has not been amended since the 2000 General Election; no proposals from the County Council, the 2010 Charter Commission, or by petition have been placed on the ballot for consideration by the electorate. Thank you for the opportunity to review the history of Hawai`i County Charter Section 3-2. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. JDH Council Member Composition and Terms by County City and County of Honolulu • Nine Council Members elected to four-year terms. • May not serve more than two consecutive four-year terms. • Staggered elections — not all council members up for election in each election. • District residency requirements — 9 council districts as created via a Council Reapportionment Commission. • Voters may only vote for the candidate that resides in his or her district. • Nonpartisan elections. Contact: County Clerk, Glen Takahashi (808) 768-3810 County of Maui • Nine Council Members elected to two-year terms. • May not serve more than five consecutive two-year terms. • All nine council seats are up for election every two years. • District residency requirements for candidates, but ALL voters may cast votes for ALL nine districts (candidates are elected "at large" —though each candidate must reside in a distinct geographical region). • If any district is sought by two or fewer candidates, those candidates and that race appear only on the General Election ballot; i.e. the Primary Election is only used to narrow the field down to two candidates — not to outright elect a council member. If there is only one candidate, that candidate goes on the General Election ballot. • Nonpartisan elections. Contact: County Clerk, Danny Mateo (808) 270-7749 County of Kauai • Seven Council Members elected to two-year terms. • May not serve more than four consecutive two-year terms. • All seven council seats are up for election every two years. • Council seats are at large — NO district residency requirements and ALL voters may vote for ALL candidates. • The primary election is used to cut the field of prospective candidates to the top fourteen vote recipients. The general elections is used to cut the field of 14 prospective candidates down to the top seven vote recipients, who then take office. • Nonpartisan elections. Contact: County Clerk, Jade Fountain-Tanigawa (808) 241-4188 Minutes of Regular HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Meeting November 14, 1989 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approximately 9:07 a.m. at the Conference Room, County Liquor Department, 101 Aupuni, Hilo, Hawaii. II. ROLL CALL Members Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Present: Sherwood Greenwell, Vice Chairman Pamela F. Cushnie James O. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Aileen Lum Steven T. Nishikawa Patricia M. Poppe Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary:R. Marie Jacobs Members Francine Duncan Absent: David Fuertes Akira T. Omonaka III. APPROVE MINUTES OF 10/31/89: MOTION: Upon motion made by Mr. L'Orange and seconded by Ms. Poppe, the minutes were approved. All were in favor. IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Kengo Nagasako (Exhibit A) A. Nagasako: Discusses which variation of single -member districts to include on the ballot (Tape 1:1:44): 1. Nagasako: Elected terms should be two years only; the present system of 4 -year terms for Council members was instituted because Council members were going to run at -large islandwide. Juvik: Questioned whether two-year terms would lend to more elections and campaign costs. Nagasako: Suggested reducing federal/state 668 limits for campaign spending. Greenwell: If campaign districts are set up, candidates would have less expenses (Tape 1:1:38); and candidates would be closer to constituents. 2. Nagasako: A seven -member Council is adequate; a nine -member Council was instituted to balance the six district members with three at -large members. Bethea: Asked whether the County should retain its 4 -year terms if the present at -large system were retained. Nagasako: If representatives dealing with national problems serve only two-year terms, cannot justify why Council members should serve four years. Supports the at -large system. 3. Juvik: Questioned whether previous Charter Commissions discussed making Council seats non-partisan. Nagasako: Believes it was discussed. V. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: District variations and reapportion- ment discussed A. Juvik: A motion was made at the last meeting that an optional districting plan would be presented to residents to vote on. Yuen: To include a specific district form on the ballot, a majority vote of all commission members is necessary, not just a majority of those present at the meeting. Commission members were polled on their preferences for district elections (all single -member districts or a mix of at - large and single -member): 1. Bethea: Refrained from voting because is opposed to 9 single -member districts; but would alternatively vote for a 6 - 3 option because it is most similar to totally at -large. Feels issues of reapportionment and single -member districts belong to a package. L'Orange: Doesn't feel package should be offered to voters. 2. Lum: Refrained from voting because is opposed to 9 single -member districts; feels council should work together as a group, rather than considering individual district needs. If the commission is offering a choice based on public testimony, a city manager option should also have been offered to the voters based on the number of citizen responses heard by the commission. Would prefer; 6 - 3 option if single -member districts is to be on ballot. 669 3. Poppe: Prefers 6 - 3 system (i.e. 6 districts with 3 at -large). Agreedthat Council Chairman should be one with most votes_ Pointed out that the majority previously agreed to offer to voters an alternative in district represen- tation; hopes that when majority votes on an issue in future, all members will actively participate in final decision, even though some members may not agree with the majority vote (Tape 1:2:43). 4. Nishikawa: Refrained from voting initially because feels council members should be concerned with whole island instead of individual districts (Tape 1:1:8). 5. Cushnie: Prefers 9 districts with none at -large, but would agree to a 6 - 3 option; would also consider a 7 or 8 member Council. 6. Juvik: Nine single -member districts might be "cleanest;" but a 6 - 3 mix would be a bridge from the present system to possibly a total single -member district system in the future. Council chair should be elected by Council from the 1 - 3 at -large candidates. Also supports minimizing gerrymandering (Tape 1:1:23) and considering some semblance of the present judicial districts. 7. Greenwell: Prefers 9 single -member districts; but would alternatively vote for 8 districts with 1 at -large Council chair. Also prefers city manager, but feels like it's too different an option to offer voters at this time. 8. L'Orange: Strongly urges commission to offer district option to voters. Feels all commission members should voice which option they prefer, whether or not they vote for one or the other. Prefers 9 single -member districts. But would vote for an alternative if single -member districts are included in a combination option (i.e. 6 - 3 or similar). Feels the largest vote getter may not have the blessing of the majority of Council people when chosing Council chair. B. L'Orange: Suggests putting this on next agenda when all members will be present to cast votes. 670 C. Bethea: Need a reapportionment plan adopted as part of the district proposal. The reapportionment plan will set up standards for the reapportionment committee. Yuen: Also need to decide how selection of committee will be handled (1:2:30); committee needs to decide where a district ends, at what number. A fixed baseline may create problems. D. Juvik: Proposes a 7 -member reapportionment committee. Mayor would appoint three without Council approval; Council appoints three; and those six appoint the chair from outside the group (proposition No. 1). You can use an appointee from each of 6 districts. Bethea: Questioned the need of geographical areas being represented. If yes, have mayor appoint and the Council approve; if not, accept Dr. Juvik's 3-3-1 proposal, using Police Commission language for the geopgrahical areas, but having mayor appoint and Council confirm (proposition No. 2). A hand count was taken in which two voted for proposition No. 1 and the rest voted for proposition No. 2. E. Bethea: Re reapportionment committee, questioned whether residency is important; took a straw vote: 1. L'Orange: No. Diverse interests more important. 2. Greenwell: Residency unimportant. Council members are presently all elected at -large, and they still fight among themselves. 3. Juvik: Geographical representation is important. 4. Cushnie: Geographical representation is important. Has noticed that even at -large electees gravitate toward needs in their areas once they are in office. 5. Nishikawa: Geographical important. 6. Poppe: Geographical. 7. Lum: Geographical unnecessary; appointees should be neutral. 8. Bethea: Geographical unnecessary. 671 F. Bethea: Legal counsel suggested that districts be composed of physically contiguous parts., Once boundary line is fixed, you work with figures until you come out with reasonable boundaries. Juvik: All districts have to be moved until balance is achieved; general guidelines can be set for reapportionment committee to protect judicial communities. Cushnie: Understood greater flexibility could be achieved if no fixed starting line existed. Greenwell: Cannot seek socio-economic continuity in districts. Bethea: Yuen will come up with general guidelines re not having a fixed baseline. G. Juvik: If Charter Commission decided to make Council elections non-partisan, wanted assurance that reapportion committee would be non-partisan also; wanted to hear Charter Commission's opinion. Yuen: Charter says no more than a bare majority of members of a commission can be members of one political party. Bethea: Doesn't feel non-partisanism should affect reapportion committee. H. Yuen: Should sticking to state representative districts be a guideline? State will have to reapportion, so old districts would change because of population changes. No proposal need be drafted re a set baseline; just a vote is necessary by commission. I. Bethea: Third item to include is reapportionment should be reviewed every 10 years. VI. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Proposed Police Commission changes A. Bethea: Chief says Charter does not list guidelines of activities Police Commission can engage in beyond hiring/firing of chief. Commission recommends they be allowed to conduct investigations re illegal activities or abuse of authority. B. Bethea: Police Chief wants Commission to review rules and regulations. Chief wants Commission to review punishments meted out for offenses. Yuen: Commission can have no power re punishments, because police officers function under union contract. Juvik: Honolulu Police Commission makes recommenda- tions for punishments and passes that on to Chief. C. Bethea: Chief wants Commission to review annual budget and make recommendations and submit an annual report to the mayor and Council. 672 Minutes of Regular HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Meeting November 30, 1989 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approximately 9:10 a.m. at the Conference Room, County Liquor Department, 101 Aupuni, Hilo, Hawaii. II. ROLL CALL: Members Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Present: Sherwood Greenwell, Vice Chairman Pamela F. Cushnie David Fuertes James O. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Aileen Lum Steven T. Nishikawa Patricia M. Poppe Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary:R. Marie Jacobs Members Francine Duncan Absent: Akira T. Omonaka III. APPROVE MINUTES OF 11/14/89: Upon motion made by Mr. Greenwell and seconded by Mr. L'Orange, the minutes were approved; all were in favor. IV. GENERAL: A. Budget: Bethea: Discussed the Charter Commission's budget through the election of 1990. Must contact Finance Department Monday with estimate. Feels legal expenses will be low after June 30, 1990, but that printing and public information costs for the election will be expensive. Feels $70,000 may cover the costs. Bob Shoji will research public information costs. B. MOTION: Mr. L'Orange made a motion that Chairman Bethea be authorized to present a figure he feels is justified to cover costs to the Finance Department. The motion was seconded by Ms. Cushnie. Discussion took 680 Corrected: 12/15/89 place on details of handouts/mailouts, which was set over for a later time. All were in favor of the motion. V. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Graham/Kohala A. Graham: Said single -member districts for the County would be appropriate and preferable at this time; the State and Federal legislative bodies are voted in at- large (Tape 1:1:36). B. Graham: Mentioned the example of six single -member districts with three elected at-large; said this method of conducting elections places an undue burden on those running at-large, monetarily and timewise. C. Cushnie: Girard Brilliant said if this 6-3 system were instituted, preferred the Council chair be named via the largest vote-getter; he also suggested the largest vote-getter, who would be chair, be named as a replacement for the mayor, instead of the managing director. Graham was asked how he felt re the above. Graham: The 6-3 system creates two classes of Council members. Greenwell: In Brilliant's example, the three at-large members are also challengers of the mayor because they come from the same at-large source; Greenwell doesn't like that. VI. ITEM NO. 4.a. ON THE AGENDA: Single -Member Districts A. Discussion: Greenwell: Circulated copies of numbers pertaining to census tracts of nine years ago. The districts are divided two ways: 6-3 (Exhibit A) and 9-0 (Exhibit B) for the commission's review; they give an idea of the area/numbers covered by the districts. Bethea: Questioned how the numbers would tie in with precincts (Tape 1:1:25). Yuen: Precincts are set up by the Lt. Governor, who can redraw precinct lines. Bethea: Questioned whether new precincts would be created if reverted to nine single -member districts. Yuen: Reapportionment committee establishes where the districts are based on a population base; believes that precinct boundaries coincide with census tract boundaries. If a boundary problem exists, can contact Lt. Governor to change a precinct. Yuen: West Hawaii has large precincts. 681 B. Bethea: Presently have 6 legislative districts; if we had 9 Council seats, we would have to create 9 districts. Juvik: State reapportions districts each census also. Reapportionment committee would determine the districts; people shouldn't decide to vote for or against the districts based on Exhibits A or B; districts will be determined by reapportionment. C. MOTION: Greenwell: Moved that action on district representation be deferred; the motion was seconded by Ms. Poppe. The motion was withdrawn by Mr. Greenwell. D. MOTION: Greenwell: Made a motion to have nine single -member districts (Tape 1:1:12). Ms. Poppe seconded the motion. 1. Discussion: Lum: Questioned whether both options could be offered to the voters: 9 single -member districts and 6 regular with three at -large Council electees. Yuen: Inconsistent alternatives may be offered to voters, but it would create a problem with ballot design. Juvik: If two options were offered, 50% of the voters would have to chose one option or else the present system would be retained. Only one alternative should be offered. Cushnie: Not necessary to offer every option. Juvik: Purpose of Charter Commission is to narrow down options, but offer an option to present system. Greenwell: Questioned whether should vote unless everyone is present. Poppe: Reminded everyone that once a majority decided an issue, that issue should not be rehashed (Tape 1:2:43). Bethea: Correct, unless majority member wanted to call for another vote. Juvik: Still need the majority of commission members (six) to vote on which plan to present to voters. And members can abstain from voting. 2. Count on Motion: Those voting for or against the proposal to allow 9 -single -member districts to be put on the ballot: Cushnie: For Fuertes: Wants to table the motion until all are present to vote. 682 E. MOTION: Fuertes: Made a motion to table the previous motion to allow 9 -single -member districts to appear on the ballot until all commission members were present. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lum. A count was taken to see who supported the motion (yes) or did not support the motion (no): 1. Count on Motion: Cushnie: Yes Fuertes: Yes Greenwell: No Juvik: Yes L'Orange: Yes The motion passed. Lum: Yes Nishikawa: Yes Poppe: No Bethea: Yes 2. Discussion: Cushnie: All commission members should make the effort to be present to vote, with no excuses. Poppe: Concerned that there may not be a meeting with all members present and items may continually be deferred. Cushnie: Feels members should not be allowed to abstain from voting. Yuen: Cannot force people to vote; but the effect of abstaining is a no vote. Cushnie: Feels it is a courtesy to state a position. L'Orange: Reminded commission members that this motion will stay on the table until such time as someone moves to take it off the table. VII. AGENDA ITEM 4.b.: Council Issues A. MOTION: Juvik: Moved to defer action on this item and move to item c. on the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. L'Orange. All were in favor and the motion carried. VIII. AGENDA ITEM 4.c.: Salary Commission A. Discussion: Lum: Boranian recommended that the Salary Commission set the salaries of all elected officials, including the mayor, Council and the prosecuting attorney. He also recommended that the Salary Commission be confirmed by the Council. Bethea: Salary Commission is now appointed by the mayor and is not confirmed by Council (Tape 1:2:33). 683 Minute of E�e'ular Meeting of \ the HAWAII CO TY CHARTER COMMISSION January 5, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approximately 3:08 p.m. at 101 Aupuni, Liquor Department Conference Room, Hilo, Hawaii. II. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Sherwood Greenwell, Vice Chairman Pamela F. Cushnie Francine Duncan David Fuertes James O. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Aileen Lum Steven T. Nishikawa Akira T. Omonaka Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary: R. Marie Jacobs Members Absent: Patricia M. Poppe III. APPROVE MINUTES OF 11/30/89 & 12/14/89 Mr. Greenwell made a motion to approve the 11/30/89 minutes; the motion was seconded by Ms. Lum. All were in favor. Mr. Omonaka made a motion to approve the minutes of 12/14/89, which was seconded by Mr. L'Orange. All were in favor. IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ron Phillips re single -member districts. A. Phillips: Should have residential requirement for council members running for office. B. Phillips: Prefer that people selecting a district council representative be made only by the 730 voters in that particular district, in the primary election (Tape 1:1:40). Those electees that survive the primary election may run islandwide in the general election. Greenwell: If have district primary elections and at -large general elections, campaigning costs/time involved will not change much. If council reps ran only in their districts in both the primary and general elections, that would save time/costs; then term could be two-year periods. Four-year terms are presently more economical. C. Phillips: Four-year terms should remain.. D. Greenwell: Populations will determine the districts. Juvik: District primaries will still require one-person, one -vote definition which involves potential gerrymandering. Objection to current system is person elected from district not in residency in the judicial district. Phillips: Still feels that per his suggestion, those selected in the primary will continue in the general election. Phillips: Proposing that people from a district will vote in primary. Juvik: District will have to be defined by population, not by a judicial boundary, which requires reapportionment. Bethea: If at -large general election, the person elected will be from the district; but the loser in the district can win in the general election. E. Bethea: Have not agreed yet on a pie -shaped population division. Numbers are based on adding or subtracting precincts (geographical areas). Because Lt. Governor is one who sets precincts at state level, cannot see that gerrymandering would be problem. Won't be an exact process. F. Greenwell: Should not consider parties; should consider just that district chooses best person. Phillips: Suggesting that from primary should come candidates from each party; and can only vote for one candidate in general. Greenwell: In general election, person getting most votes is popular choice. Phillips: Disagreed. L'Orange: Debate of issue at this time improper. 731 Minutes ,of Regular Meeting 1, of the HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION January 19, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approxi- mately 9:09 a.m. at the Hawaii State Library, Waimea, Hawaii. II. ROLL CALL: Members Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Present: Sherwood Greenwell, Vice Chairman Pamela F. Cushnie Francine Duncan David Fuertes James O. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Aileen Lum Steven T. Nishikawa Akira T. Omonaka Patricia M. Poppe Attorney: Christopher Yuen Secretary:R. Marie Jacobs III. APPROVE MINUTES OF 01/05/90: Upon motion made by Ms. Lum and seconded by Mr. Omonaka, the minutes were approved. All were in favor (Tape 1:1:43). IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None was offered. V. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Police Commission Budget A. Discussion: Bethea: Referred to Mr. Yuen's letter on the subject dated 01/19/90 (Exhibit A). Investigative authority was discussed at previous meeting. Mr. Yuen recommended one sentence be added to Sec. 7-2.2(d), as previously drafted (Exhibit B): "There shall be budgeted sufficient funds in the annual budget of the police department for use by the police commission to fulfill the intent of this section." 772 Further Discussion: Omonaka: January 31st is more than 30 days, because mayor takes office the first Monday in December. E. Discussion: Bethea: Should mayor be put under pressure to make nominations to fill vacancies? If mayor doesn't do it, appointing power can pass to Council chair. Questioned what should happen if Council doesn't act --institute a 45 -day limit? Yuen: Council only needs to vote on it one time on floor (Tape 1:2:30); it would be by resolution. If Council rejects an appointment, filling a vacancy would take longer. Motion No. 6/Count: Poppe: Makes a motion that Council have 45 days to approve/reject apointee names from when mayor sends letter to Council. Dr. Juvik seconded the motion. All were in favor. VII. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.a): Single -Member Districts A. Motion No. 7/Count: L'Orange: Motioned that the matter of the nine single -member districts be removed from the table and be put back on the floor for discussion. Seconded by Mr. Greenwell. All were in favor. Motion carried. Discussion: Cushnie: Mr. L'Orange could withdraw the motion made at the previous meeting and create a new one. Mr. L'Orange agrees to withdraw his motion. Motion No. 8/Count: Juvik: Makes a motion to amend the Charter to allow for the election of Councilmembers to come from nine single -member districts. The motion was seconded by Mr. L'Orange: All 11 members present were in favor. Motion carried. VIII. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.b): Length of Council Term A. Discussion: Omonaka: Questioned whether Council terms would remain four years. Bethea: Yes. Omonaka: There would need to be a transition period if this amendment passes. Yuen: If this were passed by the 1990 voters, the 1992 election would involve single -member districts. Motion No. 9: Mr. Greenwell made a motion that Council terms be set for two-year periods. The motion was seconded by Ms. Poppe. 776 MINUTES OF HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION July 25, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bethea called the meeting to order at approximately 9:06 a.m. at the Liquor Control Conference Room, Hilo, Hawaii. II. ROLL CALL Members Robert E. Bethea, Chairman Present: Sherwood Greenwell, Vice Chairman Pamela Cushnie David Fuertes James O. Juvik H. Peter L'Orange Steven T. Nishikawa Aileen Lum Akira Omonaka Patricia Poppe Attorney: Christopher J. Yuen Members Absent: Francine Duncan III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 11, 1990, meeting were approved unanimously. IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY John Wagner, County Clerk, addressed the Commission. In his capacity as chief county election officer, he was concerned that the number of questions being proposed by the Commission would cause delays and long lines at the voting places. He also opposed lumping together multiple subjects in a single ballot question. He indicated he would use his authority as elections officer to prevent the grouping together of different subjects in one ballot question. Yuen stated, on authority of Kahalekai v. Doi, that grouping different subjects together was legally permissible. Whether the Commission wanted to do so was up to the Commission, but if it wanted to avoid grouping items, it would have to delete many items which had previously been given tentative approval for the ballot. The Commission could effectively control the grouping by the way it defined the amendments which it sent to the clerk. 986 Mr. L'Orange requested that Mr. Yuen meet with Mr. Wagner, Mr. Bethea, and with a representative of the Corporation Counsel to resolve any issues over the ballot. V. ART. X Counsel explained that the Article X had been re -drafted to deal with concerns expressed by the County Council. The time in which the Mayor had to decide to veto the operating budget has reduced to ten working days, instead of the ten calendar days in Sect. 3-14. The language was added to make it clear that the mayor must justify amendments to the budget by referring to changed circumstances. The amendment deadline was moved to May 1 instead of May 5. Juvik moved to approve the re -draft (attachment "1" to counsel's letter of July 20, 1990) but with the May 1 amendment date moved back to May 5. Ms. Poppe seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion unanimously passed. VI. COUNCIL TERM Mr. Greenwell made a motion that if the single -member district proposal were adopted, the council term be reduced to two years. Mr. L'Orange seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion was carried by roll call vote, 7-3. Roll Call on Motion: Mr. Greenwell - Aye Ms. Cushnie - No Mr. Fuertes - Aye Dr. Juvik - No Mr. L'Orange - Aye Mr. Nishikawa - Aye Ms. Lum - Aye Mr. Akira - Aye Ms. Poppe - Aye Mr. Bethea - No VII. APPROVAL OF LANGUAGE FOR RECALL Ms. Poppe moved for approval of the language change for recall petitions (attachment "2" to counsel's letter of July 20, 1990). Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was carried. VIII. SPECIAL ELECTIONS Yuen explained that at the last meeting the Commission had voted to make it explicit that if a vacancy occurs after the filing deadline of sixty days before the primary, there is no election to fill the vacancy. Dr. Juvik moved for approval of attachment "3" to counsel's letter of July 20, 1990, which had this effect. Mr. L'Orange seconded. All were in favor and the motion unanimously carried. 987 Further Discussion: Yuen: This is in conjunction with the single -member district motion passed. Greenwell: Two-year terms will give opportunity to districts to make changes sooner and gives the electorate greater opportunity to participate in government (Tape 1:2:21). Juvik: Opposes two-year period. Single -member districts will decrease campaign costs and time, but two-year terms will again increase campaign costs and time. Cushnie: Productivity would increase with four-year terms. Also, emotional issues can work them- selves out in four years. Lum: Opposed to two years because of expenses. Motion No. 9 Count: In favor: Fuertes Opposed: Cushnie Greenwell Duncan L'Orange Juvik Omonaka Lum Bethea Nishikawa Poppe Motion failed. B. Motion No. 10/Count: Ms. Poppe made a motion that the length of Council terms be four years. The motion was seconded by Dr. Juvik. In favor: Cushnie Duncan Fuertes Greenwell Juvik L'Orange Lum Nishikawa Poppe Motion passes. Opposed: Omonaka Bethea IX. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.c): Council Residency Requirements A. Discussion: Juvik: Questioned residency require- ments. Yuen: Existing today: Live one year in the County and 90 days in the particular district you are running in. This is constitutional. It's in Sec. 3-3. 777 REGULAR MEETING SECOND SESSION Hilo, Hawaii Wednesday, December 21, 1994 The Regular meeting of the County Council was called to order by Chairman and Presiding Officer Elroy T.L. Osorio at 9:04 a.m. in the Councilroom, Hawaii County Building. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Councilmember (Arrived at Councilmember (Arrived at Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember James Y. Arakaki Keiko Bonk -Abramson 9:05 a.m.) Keola Childs 9:05 a.m.) Brian J. De Lima Takashi Domingo Jim Rath John Ray Al Smith Council Chairman Elroy Osorio Also present were: Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor Richard Wurdeman, Corporation Counsel Harry Takahashi, Finance Director Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Steve Christensen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Patricia G. Engelhard, County Clerk Kaipo Kincaid, Deputy County Clerk Daniel Lee, Legislative Auditor Cheryl Sumida, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Ed Andrade, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Keith Eck, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Lehua Cortez, Legislative Assistant Ken Hupp, Executive Assistant to the Council Chairman Hansrenda K.M. Dutro, Council Services Reporter Jeanette Aiello, Senior Clerk Stenographer 29 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 I was born in 1966 and I've seen, basically, the government --you're saying that government isn't messed up, but I say it is messed up. It's always been messed up for as far as I've been alive. Yeah, I'm sort of a victim, I guess, but that's not why I'm here either, you know. But I see that the jobs are not there and I see that the laws are being taken away from people constantly and there's just more and more laws, laws, laws and more fear and all this crap and racism, etc., that's totally separate. We just need to try to work these things out in a logical and structured manner without totalitarianism, and of the people and for the people. That's about it. QHR. OSORIQ: Thank you, Mr. Griffard. There are no questions here, thank you. The Chair then called forward Mr. Coco Pierson of P.O. Box 804, Keaau, HI 96749, who made the following statement: COCO PIERSON: Mr. Chair, Councilmembers, my name is Coco Pierson and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to make some comments before you today. I'd like to welcome the new faces on the Council and I'd like to welcome some of the old faces on the Council. I'd like to welcome you all even though I'd hoped that I wouldn't see some of you here again. But we have a system in place that I respect very much, and you are here, and you're here as a result of the wishes of the voters, and you're here in spite of the fact that there is no Bill 5 in force at the time that limited you. Bill 5, as written, and if passed, will give the voters a chance to make a decision which is reasonable for them to make. My problem is not with Bill 5, as written, but with its ancestors and what Bill 5 may turn into in future drafts before reaching the ballot in 1996. 81 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 Bill 5's ancestors attempted to reverse the overwhelming will of the voters that the terms of Councilmembers be two years, not four. I know that the leadership of the Council has changed, but the fact is that four of the members of the present Council voted to put the four-year term option to the voters last year even after a previous four year term option was rejected by the voters by a surplus of more than 20,000 votes. So why should we, the voters, believe that Bill 5 won't again turn out to be the peanut in yet another shell, in a peanut designed to steal from us the right to evaluate your performance every two years and not four. If any Councilmember here today plans to vote for Bill 5 because he or she strongly believes in a maximum limit of four two-year terms, like, you know, really believes in the limits proposed, you should consider including yourselves retroactively in this eight-year limit. That would be an act of faith that the voters would take note of. Otherwise, Bill 5, if carried to final fruition, would discriminate against newcomers to the Council and leave your motives suspect. (At this time, the three -minute -limit timer sounded.) It has been mentioned here today by Councilman Rath that marijuana is the gateway drug to really hard, bad drugs. In my opinion, Bill 5 is the gateway bill to Council unaccountability. Please take note and thank you for this opportunity. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. Rath. MR. RATH: Thank you for coming and thank you for your support of Bill 5. This is the third time I introduced this bill, and it was and always has been introduced as a two-year term limitation. It was, in the past Council, amended by the then majority, to four (sic) years. It was my feeling and the feeling of the minority members at the time that the voters had already voted twice for two-year terms, and I believed that to be a resounding mandate given to us to maintain four-year terms. 82 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 The bill, as it stands now, is for term limits to limit it to eight years, four two-year terms. I told that the past majority, if they wanted to put a separate bill up for four-year terms, I'd vote to let that go to the people because the people wouldn't pass it. They didn't pass it before. They rejected it twice and they rejected it again, you know, I have a feeling. But I would vote for that to go forward as a separate bill. This is for term limits to limit the terms of Councilmembers to four two-year terms. You can't make laws retroactive, that's just the way our system of laws are. You can't turn back the hands of time. But nonetheless, we have to start some place, so let us start with this. Let us start with limiting terms. It's ironic that we have a Republican lead and Green coalition majority that we are now limiting ourselves, but it's the right thing to do and I think the time is right and I appreciate your support. fHR. OSORIO: Councilman De Lima. MR. DE LIMA: Well, the bottom line is that you still need six votes, and the four Republicans and the Green only adds up to five and the reality is that I've always stated from Day 1 when I first got elected in 1990, that I was for term limits and I'll be voting for this bill, because I stated on every occasion where this term limit bill was discussed, on every occasion, I said I think the voters should decide this issue. I also said that I preferred the two-year term because I feel that some people may be ineffective, and the people should have a right to replace the people within two years. I stated it on every occasion. To give the impression that it was the majority that was not in favor of term limits is clearly not accurate. If you look at every single meeting, that's been my position since 1990. But now it appears that we may have enough votes to get six votes to put it on the ballot, and I think others will be voting in favor of it and we may have more than six votes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 83 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 CHR. OSORIO: Thank you very much, Mr. De Lima. Coco, your fears that restricts newcomers, Coco, think back. It's just about two years and a few months and we have 6 new members up here, these are all newcomers, Coco. I think it's opening it up and by restricting hereon, limiting the terms to four two-year terms, I think this is a good bill and I would support it. Thank you. MR. PIERSON: 1 appreciate your comments. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. De Lima. MR. DE LIMA: I think there are three newcomers, Mr. Chairman, not six. CHR. OSORIO: No, in the --- MR. DE LIMA: Oh, in two terms. Well, if you think about it, over four years, we've had a total turnover, except for Mr. Domingo. So I've only served four years. CHR. OSORIO: That's correct, by adding yourself and Jimmy. So yes, newcomers have an excellent opportunity to serve on this Council and I look forward to a couple more new ones the next election. Mr. Rath. MR. RATH: Let me add to Mr. De Lima's statement. The reason I brought this up with confidence was because of Mr. De Lima's support and statements in the past. He said explicitly and without hesitation during the past Council that he would, regardless of any allegiancies he had to that majority, vote for any term limit bill brought up. It was his support that gave me the confidence to bring it up before this Council and I thank you for that support, Mr. De Lima. I appreciate it. MR. DE LIMA: Well, that's why I wanted the record to be accurate. MR. RATH: I agree. CHR. OSORIO: We'll make sure the record is set right. MR. RATH: It should be noted you also said that in the paper also and that was a confidence factor I brought up that you would be voting for it. Thank you. 84 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 CHR. OSORIO: Thank you very much, Mr. Pierson for coming before us. The Chair then called forward Mr. Roger Evans of HCR 2, Box 6469, Keaau, who made the following statement: ROGER EVANS: Good morning. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. Evans, before you start, I've got a side bet here that we would finish before 12 noon and boy, you're going to keep me on time here. We're doing real well. MR. EVANS: This is a minute and 30 second long. If I'm up here any longer, it's your fault. First of all, thank you very much for allowing us to have an opportunity. I want to thank you and I want to thank modern medicine for giving me a chance to speak today. I'm not here to speak against term limits. I am here to speak for the education of the voters. We already have term limits, that's called all the elections. You just mentioned that in the last four years we have six new Councilmembers here, which speaks for itself. We don't need term limits, all we have to do is educate the voters and then we will have the better candidates sitting on the County Council. It is my opinion that the reason that term limits have become so popular is because it's the easy way out. When we have a powerful but ineffective --where a special interest politician in office who is well financed by the pacts, the media cries out "Why can't we get rid of him?" We need term limits, but term limits work against the public servant who is concerned and works to represent the people. Why are you so interested in replacing someone who is working hard and is effective to be replaced by whom? Someone who can be bought out by those special interest pacts? 85 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 If we truly wanted to improve local government, you should find ways to educate the voters. You should find ways to level the playing field for the candidates. You should find ways to evenly distribute the pact money to all politicians running in a race. I say don't throw out all the good politicians just to get rid of the bad ones. Mahalo and Merry Christmas to you. CHR. OSORIO: Thank you very much, Mr. Evans. Mr. Rath. MR. RATH: Yes, Mr. Evans. Thank you very much. Those are very good points and well taken. I think that if we could do campaign reform, and as you mentioned here, in the Council, we would do it undoubtedly in the upcoming sessions. We would be putting forth resolutions to the Legislature to enact such reforms. This bill, term limits, came from the idea of citizen legislatures, that you've come out of the community, you go into legislative or political body for a while and then return. This bill specifically states that there are four consecutive terms meaning that you could take a break and come back. It goes beyond simply limiting the terms. There's a couple of points. One is, incumbency is very powerful. You can, through your actions taken in this body and any other body, gather the attention of the media, give yourself your own podium that the person running for office doesn't have the wherewithal) to do that. Additionally, you are in a position where the pack groups, money groups, special interests are already there talking to and forming relationships with elected officials. Incumbency, in and of itself, is extremely powerful when used by politicians to get reelected. This allows every so often, every eight years, if you will, a new playing field. Additionally, it reduces the retirement benefits and long term benefits, or could, paid to politicians. 86 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 I think it's something where we all thought back when I was a kid that there would never be another comedian as good as Red Skelton. Red Skelton was the funniest guy on TV and he would never be replaced when the show went off the air. There couldn't be anybody that funny and along came Robin Williams and he was just as funny and everything as Red Skelton. I think the same is true. Anybody that has the kind of ego that they think there's nobody better has got a rude awakening coming. There's always somebody better out there and people should be given a shot without having to fight. It's tough enough to run for election. To fight against incumbency is just an unbelievable battle. So that is my reasoning and I appreciate your reasoning as well. Oh, I'm glad to see you've recovered from your heart attack and I hope you never have such an ill effect come upon you again. CHR, OSORIO: Yes, Roger. MR. EVAN$: Me neither. When we talk about term limits, one of the phrases that come up is that career politician; and people treat that sort of as a negative thing. I don't see anything wrong with career politicians. As long as they're doing the job that they're being elected for, they should --if the voters want them in, they should have that opportunity to be in it. They're doing the job. If they aren't doing the job, it should be up to the voters to get rid of them and it should be up to the government, whether local or State, to help educate those voters. It's very important. I still get people coming to me. Just the other day, I was leaving the gas station and this guy says, "Hey Al! Hey Al! Hey Al!" I was walking away and he came over and put his hand on my shoulder and he says, "Hey, Al! I want to talk to you." I said, "Wait a minute. If you want to talk to Al Smith, he's got a mustache. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. De Lima. MR. DE LIMA: Well, Mr. Evans, I hope you were very nice to that person. MR. EVANS: Oh, absolutely. 87 Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 MR. DE LIMA: For Mr. Smith's sake. I think we should understand that all we're doing is putting the issue before the voters, and the voters will then decide whether it's a good thing or not so good thing in terms of your perspective. Obviously, there are very good arguments on both sides of the issue. Someone made comments to me that we already have a term limit. It's two years, and the voters decide whether we get the opportunity to renew our opportunity to serve. Quite frankly, this last election, I think the title of being an incumbent was more harm than helpful in terms of the national trend which I think had some responsibility for being able to produce or not produce under the situation of being under a tight economic situation where you have less tax dollars. It becomes, I think, a matter of more concern than being a positive attribute because of the fact that there's very little money to go around to solve the infrastructure problems that we all face in each of our districts. The bottom line is that hopefully the people will be able to decide and make a determination whether or not limiting people to four consecutive two-year terms is a good idea and I trust in the decision of the voters, and I'm sure that the matters will be debated and people will have some discussion on it and we'll live with the decision of the people. So I appreciate you being willing to contribute to that discussion so that people can see two sides of the issue. Thank you very much for coming today. CHR. OSORIO: Thank you, Mr. De Lima, and thank you very much, Mr. Evans, for coming this morning. MR. EVANS: I just want to make one last comment. CHR. OSORIO: You go right ahead. You are a Republican right? You go right ahead. 88 Hawaii County Council ORDINANCE: BILL 5: jWAIVED/FC) (C-36) December 21, 1994 A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 5, initiates a Charter amendment to Section 3-2, Article III, of the Hawaii County Charter relating to Composition and Terms of the Hawaii County Council --introduced by Mr. Rath. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. Rath. Mr. Rath moved for the passage of Bill 5 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. De Lima. CHR. OSORIO: Any discussion? Mrs. Bonk -Abramson, followed by Mr. Arakaki. MRS. BONK-ABRAMSON: I have a question for the maker of this bill. I know we discussed this in our previous format of the Council make up, and was the wording the same? The terms of the Council shall not exceed four consecutive two-year terms? Does that mean that you can have consecutive terms of eight years and then take a break, come back for another eight years or so if you get elected? MR. RATH: Right. And that's --- MRS. BONK-ABRAMSON: So you just can't do more than a consecutive amount of terms? MR. RATH: Yeah, you gotta take a break. MRS. BONK-ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. CHR. OSORIO: Okay, Mr. Arakaki. MR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'll be voting for this bill today although I don't agree with all the items in the bill. I've voted against something like this in the previous Council but I do believe that the people do want term limits, therefore I'll be voting for it. What I don't agree on is the two-year terms. I really feel that we should have two four-year terms and no more than eight years of service, but I don't think I have the votes today to pass something like that. So I'll vote for it and let the voters decide that's the way they want to do it. 148 r Hawaii County Council December 21, 1994 Perhaps in the future, I may introduce a bill for consideration by this Council to let the voters decide whether they would want a two-year or four-year Council term. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. OSORIO: Thank you, Mr. Arakaki. Mr. Domingo. MR, DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Evans, this morning, brought up some good points in considering this matter this morning; and he indicated that there is a system and we keep in check and evaluate the performance of a politician every two years now, and I seem to go along with the same idea in feeling that the people should be the ones to alternately decide, and they do, as to who will be serving them in a County Council or any lawmaking body. I feel that to impose such limits upon this whole issue is also limiting the people and their right to decide an individual's ability to serve in government. People, by voting at the polls, have said that right, and what we will be doing is, in some ways, curtailing that right that is before them. But as often mentioned in this Council, if we would put this before the public and have them decide whether they really want it, I have no problem on this particular issue. One point to consider is, it's not, this comment is not made for any personal gain or anything because as you all obviously know, it probably won't affect me. CHR. OSORIO: At all, that's for sure. Any other comments? (There were none.) If not, Madam Clerk, would you call the roll? The roll call vote on Bill 5 was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Arakaki, Bonk -Abramson, Childs, De Lima, Domingo, Rath, Ray, Smith and Chairman Osorio - 9. NOES: None. CHR. OSORIO: That's really good. Bill 5 is adopted on first reading. I hope you all feel the same way when it comes up again. 149 REGULAR MEETING THIRD SESSION Hilo, Hawaii Wednesday, January 4, 1995 The Regular meeting of the County Council was called to order by Chairman and Presiding Officer Elroy T.L. Osorio at 9:03 a.m. in the Councilrocm, Hawaii County Building. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember James Y. Arakaki Councilmember Keiko Bonk -Abramson Councilmember Keola Childs Councilmember Brian J. De Lima Councilmember Takashi Domingo Councilmember Jim Rath Councilmember John Ray Councilmember Al Smith Council Chairman Elroy T.L. Osorio Also present were: Harry Takahashi, Finance Director Richard Wurdeman, Corporation Counsel Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Riley Smith, Deputy Chief Engineer Ted S.H. Hong, Assistant Corporation Counsel Steve Christensen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Frederick Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela, Deputy Corporation Counsel Patricia G. Engelhard, County Clerk Daniel Lee, Legislative Auditor Cheryl Sumida, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Ed Andrade, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Keith Eck, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Billie Baclig, Legislative Assistant Merle Lam, Legislative Assistant Lehua Cortez, Legislative Assistant Ken Hupp, Executive Assistant to the Council Chairman Hansrenda K.M. Dutro, Council Services Reporter Jeanette Aiello, Senior Clerk Stenographer 175 Hawaii County Council January 4, 1995 ORDINANCE A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 5, initiates a BILL 5: Charter amendment to Section 3-2, Article III of the (C-36) Hawaii County Charter relating to Composition and Terms of the Hawaii County Council, introduced by Mr. Rath on December 21, 1994 for first reading; was presented for the second of three required readings. Mr. Rath moved for the adoption of Bill 5 on second reading. Seconded by Mr. Childs. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. Ray. MR. RAY: Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I also hope we support an eight year term limit with two four-year terms to go on the ballot and that we support an aggressive public education process prior to the next election to address the voter's needs to really understand the issues involved. I strongly believe that two-year terms are a huge waste of time and money in many ways and that from an efficiency standpoint, the public would be much better served by four-year terms. Thank you. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. Arakaki. MR. ARAKAKI: I concur with Mr. Ray's remarks. I always felt that two four-year terms would be the way we should be going and I supported the eight year limit on two year terms because I believe in term limits. But I think what Mr. Ray suggested is more reasonable and I think that this Council should consider that and put that on the ballot and let the people decide which way they want. Thank you. CHR. OSORIO: Mrs. Bonk -Abramson. MRS. BONK--ABRAMSON: Well, I can see the pro's and con's of having four years rather than two years for personal reasons because you have to run for office every two years but the voter's did vote on it twice already and I think we've heard their idea about supporting two year terms. 213 Hawaii County Council January 4, 1995 In fact, this new body is elected because we had two year terms and it got changed around quite radically. I think that's what the voter's wanted so we can keep putting it back on that ballot but they wanted two-year terms, Mr. Ray and Mr. Arakaki. Like it or not, that's what they want. Thank you. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. De Lima. MR. DE LIMA: Well actually, that's not totally correct. The two-year term has always been tied to another issue. When it first was adopted by the voter's, it was tied to single member districts. It did not ever stand alone. The second time it was put on the ballot, it was tied to a term limit bill and that measure was not published in a time frame for it to appear legally on the ballot and as such, that was challenged. So I think there's a lot of room for indicating that there has never been a two to four year term placed on the ballot in a way that it was not surrounded with any legal challenge to allow the voters to decide that issue. Now I, for one, understand the value of a four year term and as Mrs. Bonk -Abramson indicated, there's pro's and con's. I think from a point of view of an elected official, four year terms serve a lot of benefits in not having to run. The cost of elections are extremely expensive. On the other hand, I think two-year terms are very effective by allowing the voters to be able to replace someone that they feel hasn't been responsive or doing the job and I can see both sides of the issue. I'm satisfied with the two year terms and I will be satisfied with four consecutive two-year terms, but I have no objection for the matter as Mr. Ray suggested be placed on the ballot. Thank you. 214 REGULAR MEETING FOURTH SESSION Hilo, Hawaii Wednesday, January 20, 1995 The Regular meeting of the County Council was called to order by Chairman and Presiding Officer Elroy T.L. Osorio at 9:07 a.m. in the Councilroom, Hawaii County Building. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember James. Y. Arakaki Keiko Bonk -Abramson Keola Childs Brian J. De Lima Takashi Domingo Jim Rath John Ray Al Smith Council Chairman Elroy T.L. Osorio Also present were: Richard Wurdeman, Corporation Counsel Ted H.S. Hong, Assistant Corporation Counsel Rudy Legaspi, Mayor's Executive Assistant Jay Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney Patricia G. Engelhard, County Clerk Daniel Lee, Legislative Auditor Cheryl Sumida, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Ed Andrade, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Keith Eck, Legislative Auditor Assistant II Alapaki Nahale'a, Legislative Auditor Assistant Ken Hupp, Executive Assistant to the Council Chairman Hansrenda K.M. Dutro, Council Services Reporter Jeanette Aiello, Senior Clerk Stenographer 252 Hawaii County Council January 20, 1995 ORDINANCE A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 3, amends BILL 3: Ordinance 94-71, as amended, the Operating Budget for (C-25) the County of Hawaii for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1995, by increasing revenues in the Federal Grants - Fed Transit Admin account by $361,000; and appropriates same to the Mass Transit - Motor Vehicle account; introduced by Mr. Rath on January 4, 1995, was presented for second and final reading. Mr. Rath moved for the passage of Bill 3 on second and final reading. Seconded by Mr. De Lima and carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Councilmembers Arakaki, Bonk -Abramson, Childs, De Lima, Domingo, Rath, Ray, Smith and Chairman Osorio - 9. NOES: None. CHR. OSORIO: Bill 3 passes second and final reading. ORDINANCE A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 5, initiates a Charter BILL 5: amendment to Section 3-2, Article III of the Hawaii (C-36) County Charter relating to Composition and Terms of the Hawaii County Council; introduced by Mr. Rath on December 21, 1994 for first reading and January 4, 1995 for second reading, was presented for third and final reading. Mr. Rath moved for the passage of Bill 5 on second and final reading. Seconded by Mr. De Lima and carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Councilmembers Bonk -Abramson, Childs, De Lima, Domingo, Rath, Ray, Smith and Chairman Osorio - 8. NOES: Councilmember Arakaki - 1. CHR. OSOR1O: Bill 5 passes third and final reading. 293 Back To Page 1 of 60 Back To: Home Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Charter Main Page HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Meeting of August 25, 1999 Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Center Attendance: J. Ray, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa (after 3:20 p.m.), G. Martin, J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama, Counsel Chris Yuen Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog, S.Bess Guest Speakers: David Arakawa, Corporation Counsel/City and County of Honolulu, John Henry Felix, Vice Chair/County Council, City and County of Honolulu And 10 Members of the public in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. RAY: I'd like to call the Special Meeting, Wednesday, August 25th of the 1999-2000 Charter Commission to order. In attendance today; myself John Ray, Chairman; Roland Higashi, Vice Chair; Marni Herkes, Sue Irvine, George Martin, John Santangelo and Gary Yoshiyama. We expect other Charter Members momentarily but let's go ahead and get under way. Item III on the agenda. Minutes Approval. The August llth minutes which were all mailed to you folks. HERKES: So moved, approve. YOSHIYAMA: Second. RAY: All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 2 of 60 RAY: Okay. Minutes approved. Financial Status Report. Again, we don't have everything officially but we have a rough balance of $97,323.29 at this point. Item V. Communications. The only communication is we do have a letter from the Planning Director, Virginia Goldstein, requesting to come in before the Charter Commission on a number of issues they'd like to discuss so I think we'll probably agendize that for our next meeting. HERKES: Mr. Ray, could I interrupt? Would you ask Ms. Goldstein to list the measures that the Planning Department has taken to open up the hearings process for the Planning Commission. I know they've taken quite a few measures and I'd like to know what they are. RAY: So the request is background on any steps they may have taken to - okay. Statements from the Public. There are none. Unfinished Business. We are, I guess, in a state of unfinished business in terms of our discussion so we'll just proceed on to New Business. Today we are happy to have Vice Chair Councilman John Henry Felix from the City and County of Honolulu here today, as well as his Senior Advisor, Ron Boyer and David Arakawa, the Corporation Counsel from the City and County of Honolulu, to give us some information and to have an exchange of information on what we have agendized as Nonpartisan Elections and I'd like to stick with that discussion initially and then if you folks do want to get into some discussion on some other items that have come up, especially City Manager form of government or whatever, we can entertain that discussion as well. Mr. Felix, do you have any prepared remarks or do you want to just open this up? FELIX: I do have bullet points and I've shared them with the secretary for inclusion in your minutes so I will not read from prepared text but go over salient points that I think will be of interest to all of you. I'm delighted to be next to my distinguished colleague, David Arakawa, who has the enviable task of serving not only the Mayor but the City Council and I must say that he does an exemplary job in bifurcating himself as a lawyer. Although we have had differences of opinion from time to time, we respect each other and there's never been any acrimony between us. It's a delight to be on the Big Island. My roots Hilo. My grandfather served as a District Judge, Portuguese name, as well as Albert Mariano Felix on this island. I speak from a very applaud and Commission. one because times. commend This is are here and my mother was born in Manuel Souza Pacheco. Sounds like a who served as a Circuit Court Judge interesting perspective, and first I would like to say that I do each and every one of you for serving as Members of the Charter not an a Charter such I commend you and I to participate today. enviable task but your charge is indeed a very important as yours, should not be static. It has evolve with the congratulate you and I want to thank you for inviting me I come from a very interesting perspective, having served as the Assistant Minority Leader of the Council from 1988 to 1990, and having served as the Minority Leader from 1990 through 1992, as the only Republican on the City Council. In 1990, the file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 3 of 60 Honolulu Charter Commission proposed nonpartisan Mayoral and Council elections and I was a very strong supporter of this concept, not necessarily because I was serving as the only Republican on the council and it was a rather lonely experience, because I felt that this would be in the best interest of the City and County of Honolulu. The 1992 General Election results, I think are very interesting. There were 244,493 votes cast; 130,588 voted in the affirmative and in the negative, 113,905. The margin was relatively close. It was only a 5% margin and I think that was, in great part, due to the fact that the public was not as aware as they should have been relative to the various nuances that would result with nonpartisan elections. So if this is a course of action that this Charter Commission proposes, I would suggest that a very aggressive educational program be put into place, not necessarily to support one point of view or the other, but to make the general public keenly aware of the positive aspects of nonpartisan elections vs. the other course of action. I think we're all very aware of the fact that local government has little to do with partisan politics. Roads, parks, water, police, fire and zoning have very little to do with partisan politics. They're all very basic services. During elections, partisan politics serves only to, in my opinion, distract the voters' attention from the essential issues, municipal issues. Good ideas know no idealogy or party affiliation. Good people are not determined by party affiliation. As a Council Member, I can say that I have never given thought as to whether a nominee to a City Board or Commission - whether they are a card-carrying Member of this party or that. I have always evaluated them on the basis of their ability, their experience and their expertise. And as a businessman, I have never hired by party affiliation. I look for the best and the brightest. In over ten years as a Council Member, I have never even asked a prospective staff member as to their party affiliation. After almost ten years with me, my Senior Aide, who's in the back of the room, Ron Boyer - to this day, I still don't know what party he belongs to and it's really unimportant. I believe that today's voters are becoming increasingly more sophisticated in that they are better informed as to the important issues of the day. Citizens, in my opinion, no longer depend on a party boss or a shop steward to tell them how to vote and I have had some experience with labor organizations having served as the Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO, Unity House, having served with the Teamsters and the Hotel Workers, so I do have a labor background and I say that we have come a long way. And there may be those of you who are affiliated with Labor Unions who would vehemently disagree. My firm belief that people today are voting for candidates based on their stands on the issues and that may be a bit of naivete on my part but that's how I believe. A small legislative body such as a County Council with nine members can ill afford to waste time and energy engaged in party politics or attempting to champion certain party planks or party lines for the reasons I articulated earlier. The needs of the people; public health and safety, do not, in my opinion, depend on partisan politics. In a small legislative body, every members' voice and vote is critically important. The issues that come before the body cross party lines. They can't afford to "ice" out any member because he or she belongs to the "wrong" party. Party loyalty or the expectations of party leaders, may put undue pressure on elected officials to deny positions of authority or power to members of other parties. And sometimes members of the "other" party may be the more qualified to hold certain positions. Nonpartisan elections do not save the City or the County money insofar as election costs are concerned. There are still two elections; the first Special Election, and file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 4 of 60 the second Special Election, so doing this to save money, I don't think is going to be a benefit. However, nonpartisan elections serve to level the playing field for candidates, allowing all candidates of all political persuasions to go head to head in the first election, and if they prevail, to avoid the expense of the second election. Partisan primaries tend to cause candidates to need to raise more money because they must compete in a minimum of two elections, the Primary and the General. As a member of the City Council of Honolulu, and as the only Republican, I don't think in terms of party politics. I have served as Vice Chair, as Chair of the Budget, Chair of Parks, Chair of Public Safety, virtually in every capacity that has been made available to me and I have worked with all of my colleagues. There is no division as to who is in the majority and who is in the minority, and I have been able to work my legislation through the agony and the ecstasy of three readings, a public hearing, and in most cases, have seen the legislation that I proposed become law, including the Lease to Fee Conversion Bill 91-95. A very controversial bill which the Bishop Estate worked very hard to dump and, I must say, to the credit of my colleagues who are Democrats, we did see that bill through. I think it was a very important bill although there are those who would, to this day, suggest that it is unfair and should not be consistent with the Land Reform Act of 1962, which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967 - the Land Reform Act of 1967. So, I think nonpartisan elections are healthy and I would strongly recommend that you consider them. So with those brief remarks, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I stand ready, able and willing to respond to any questions. Anything that is too difficult to respond to, I'll refer to David Arakawa. RAY: Thank you. David, do you want to make any introductory remarks? ARAKAWA: Council Member Felix has to catch a plane so I'll try to keep this brief. I also am honored to be here with you, having worked with the City and County of Honolulu Charter Commission over the past little over a year, I know what type of hard work they put in and what hard work lies in front of you folks. Your dedication and your willingness to serve, I admire. I'm also sitting here next to John Henry Felix who I also respect and admire, and it's great sitting next to one of my clients who's not under fire or under investigation here, and is giving good advice to people. Too often when I sit next to one of my clients, it's trouble but anyway, this is a joy. In fact it's a good opportunity. I'll just quickly go through the nuts and bolts. I think John Henry Felix has gone through the reasons why it was done and some of the effects of it but the 1991-1992 Charter Commission of the City and County of Honolulu put the issue of nonpartisan voting for City and County Offices, the Mayor and the Council, on the ballot. They did this and they did some research. The first thing they did is a survey of Charter issues of the 100 largest cities in the United States. So they did a survey and that survey is still available but it's dated. It's almost ten years old. Sixty-nine of the largest cities responded and the results on this particular issue - they did it on a number of issues they were looking at - on partisan vs. nonpartisan, they found that 23% of the largest cities had partisan elections and 77% of the largest cities in the United States had nonpartisan elections. The most common type of election, and now we're going to get into some of the nuts file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 5 of 60 and bolts of that, was a type of election we have in Honolulu where the candidates run - however many candidates want to apply for that position, either Mayor or a Council seat, run, and to win outright, you have to have more than 50% of the vote so a good 43% of those cities that responded had a system, or type of election, where if you win 51%, 50 or more percent of the vote, you're in. The next type of election that we found out there were the two highest vote getters, no matter how much they got, the two highest vote getters run off. 30% of the City and Counties had those types of elections. And the last type was winner take all. One election, whoever gets the most number of votes wins, no matter if they get a majority or not. So I guess the way Honolulu patterned its nonpartisan election is as I described first. If you get 50% or more, you win outright. If you don't get 50%, you go to a run-off with the number two vote getter. The issue was presented to the voters and I have to say, by reading this, it was not - I guess the Charter Commission at that time favored nonpartisan, so it was written - the questions and the rationale were slanted that way. It wasn't an even handed type of discussion. In this past Charter Commission, we tried to give the pros and cons. I wanted to give the pros and cons. They said, like John Henry Felix said, that partisan politics has little to do with local government. Local government's about providing basic public services and there's a quote that sometimes we talk, and I think it's heeded in the City and County of Honolulu, that "there's not a Democratic, Republican or Green way to pave a road". And no matter what we've been able to do - the council, it's been great working in this job - we see the council get along and John Henry's a very important part of that. And when I look at the issue of partisan politics, I think there is a place for partisan politics in government but I just feel thankful that John Henry is able, even though he's a Republican, because we have the nonpartisan system, to hold a leadership position and I don't know if that would be possible if we were in another form of arrangement. Before I got asked to come to this conference, I would tell people, it's great we have John Henry there. He has more experience than all of our Council Members put together, probably, in government. But enough about John Henry. Now, just as to our perspective, working as one of the line departments as Corporation Counsel, we find, and I don't know if it operates this way on the Big Island, but the way that the City operates does not depend on what party you're a Member of, the way we see it work everyday. The way the council relates to the Mayor doesn't hinge on whether he's a Democrat or Republican. The way the Mayor relates to the council doesn't hinge on that either so that's kind of nice, in my position where I have two masters basically. John Henry's my boss and the Mayor's my boss and the department heads are my boss. It works for us. I don't know how it would work in another system, in the prior system, because I wasn't part of the City then but I can say this system works. That's all I have to say. RAY: Okay, so I'm going to open it up for questions now so raise your hand. John Santangelo. SANTANGELO: I just want to go over real quick here, some of the facts you gave us. When you said the 100 largest cities, 69 responded, 23% had partisan. What part had non? ARAKAWA: 77%. Of the 69 that responded. SANTANGELO: Of the 69 that responded. Okay. ARAKAWA: And I have this report and I can turn it over to Sharron but I can answer file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 6 of 60 any specifics. SANTANGELO: And then in the Honolulu type of election, anybody gets into a Primary. If you're in that Primary, 50% plus one or more, that's it. ARAKAWA: Right. Automatically in. SANTANGELO: Otherwise the two top vote getters go into what you would call a General? ARAKAWA: Correct. SANTANGELO: But you said there was another type where the two highest - so one election only and the two highest vote getters, regardless of the percentage, were winners? ARAKAWA: No, two elections. It would be two elections. There's other places on the mainland that have two elections; first election, they see who the two highest vote getters are, and then they run in the General. SANTANGELO: Like the Honolulu? ARAKAWA: No. Honolulu is 50% - if you get 50% plus one, you're in. If you don't get 50% plus one, you have to run-off against your number two. SANTANGELO: So, almost the same thing then. The two highest would move on unless you got 50% plus. ARAKAWA: Correct. SANTANGELO: Then the other one was, no matter how many people get in the Primary, the highest vote getter regardless, is the winner. One election, one winner. ARAKAWA: Right. SANTANGELO: So it's just plurality, it's not a majority type thing? ARAKAWA: Yes, not a majority. FELIX: There is one exception. If there is a resignation or removal from office and there is a special Special Election, and it's winner take all in the Special Election, plurality. That's the one exception. SANTANGELO: Thank you. RAY: Marni Herkes. HERKES: You guys have been fairly glowing about nonpartisan elections and your experience with them has been very positive. ARAKAWA: No, I lost the Prosecutor's election. FELIX: That's right, I forgot about that. ARAKAWA: That's a joke. That's a joke. I got a better job. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 7 of 60 HERKES: That's partisan, the Prosecutor's was. With everything that has a lot of positives, there are some negatives. What negatives do you see on nonpartisan elections? What kinds of things would work better and what are some of the negatives for nonpartisan? FELIX: From my perspective, I can't think of any negatives as it relates to my association with the council. There are times that there are negatives associated with my membership in the Republican Party. HERKES: We all have that problem. FELIX: That's the only negativity I have and there are times that they forget that I'm a Republican, or if I support my Democratic colleagues on a controversial issue, there can be a bit of pilikia, but most of my problems have centered around my association with the party. ARAKAWA: I cheated. I had my staff to research and what happens sometimes, is - let's put it this way, in some jurisdictions that have partisan local governments, when the party in power, say in Washington or State, whatever partisan party is in power at that time, has special policies or programs that they're pushing. It's much easier for the municipality to take advantage of those Federal programs or State programs and sometimes, when it's nonpartisan and the majority of the council feels they don't have to honor a certain political party, whatever party's in power - they don't have to honor that vision or that government policy. Then they go, hey screw that, we don't care if the State has all this money, we don't care if the Feds have this money for us but we don't - that kind of thing, and then the municipality or the county might lose out on something that they could have benefitted from. I wouldn't say that I recommend or I'm a 100% behind nonpartisan because as an attorney, there's always a down side so you always got to keep that in the back of your mind. Say, eh, wait a minute, there's these down sides. But what I would say is that I've seen it work in the two and a half years that I've been Corporation Counsel. I don't know what it was like before. It might have worked better before, I don't know, but in the two and a half years I was here, I see it work and it may be the type of people we have. It may be a function of the type of people we have. They all get along. They respect each other for the most part. FELIX: In looking at the period when we had partisan elections, the council operated at that time, pretty much on a nonpartisan basis. I always had a committee to chair. I had an equal voice with the members of the majority party so I must say that my ten year experience on the council has been very good relative to the lack of partisan politics being played on a regular basis and I think that's a very healthy situation because we work together to enact the best legislation for the people of the County. ARAKAWA: So it didn't really make a - FELIX: It reaffirmed what we were already doing and I think that's a very interesting observation. It just came to me. RAY: Gary. YOSHIYAMA: Yes, just to give me some perspective here. City and County of Honolulu Council Members run from single member districts. FELIX: That's correct, nine districts. YOSHIYAMA: That's a recent change? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 8 of 60 FELIX: No, that's been in place ever since I've been on the council. There was a proposed Charter Amendment to have at -large seats and that was not approved by the electorate. That was in what year? ARAKAWA: 1991 - 92. FELIX: 1992, the electorate voted against at -large seats. They liked the concept of nine councilmanic districts. YOSHIYAMA: And the term is? FELIX: Four years. YOSHIYAMA: Four years and you cannot go for more than two consecutive full terms. FELIX: Yes, I was a very strong supporter of term limits. YOSHIYAMA: Has that been in place for a while, the four year? FELIX: In 1992. YOSHIYAMA: 1992. FELIX: So the entire council cannot run for re-election in the upcoming election. ARAKAWA: Doesn't that pose a problem though, in continuity? FELIX: No, I don't think - we did correct that. We did make one mistake in not providing for staggered terms when we initiated that change. However, we have corrected that because in the year 2002, there will be staggered terms. If it ends with an even number, those even councilmanic districts will have four years and the unevens will have two years and have to run in two years. We had thought of flipping a coin - Thought of a number of other - ARAKAWA: That would have been too quick. FELIX: Or the highest votes. ARAKAWA: John Henry would win every time. FELIX: He says the nicest things about me. Thank you. RAY: Sue. IRVINE: I guess I'd like to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. I know, Mr Felix, you're a Republican, who have been kind of nonexistent in the State of Hawaii previously, and you feel you haven't had a hard time getting along with Democrats, but we do have, in our county, a Green Party as well. Candidates have been elected and they're feeling very strongly that they won't find the kind of exposure or representation that they might get if we go nonpartisan rather than having parties. You said it's cheaper. It levels the playing field for counties not to have parties but I can see where parties could raise money and support candidates whereas you wouldn't have to raise the money yourselves. You know what I mean? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 9 of 60 FELIX: Well, I've never received a dime from the Republican Party. Please don't report that back to headquarters. But I can see your dilemma. You have a rather unique situation here. IRVINE: I think nationally it's a bit that way although I have daughters in Portland, Oregon, for example, where the Democratic Party has taken on the environmental issues and makes sure that the crushed glass gets put into the roads and things, for recycling, which we've had a problem with here with the Democrats in control, and somebody needs to represent the environment, as far as I'm concerned. FELIX: And I would agree. I think many of those issues are primarily addressed at the State Legislative level although there are, for example, when we initiated the effort to preserve the Kaiwi shoreline on Oahu, it was an effort that was initiated by now Congressman Neil Abercrombie and myself, so I find myself joining with my fellow Democrats to bring about the preservation and conservation initiatives, leasehold conversion, the preservation of Hanauma Bay and other preservation/conservation efforts. The council, I think, has been very sensitive to those kinds of concerns and it takes on different dynamics based upon different issues. IRVINE: Well, I'm glad your council has been sensitive to that. FELIX: We do have our problems however, the bottom line is I think we have addressed social and environmental issues very well, on the whole. RAY: Marni. HERKES: In some of our political parties, they have platforms and they have positions, and they have support from other people who supposedly think the same way. A little bit of what David said of that support and those kinds of issues that are like-minded. When you're running nonpartisan, you are out there by yourself. You don't have to abide by them, but on the other side, you don't have those supports and things. How do you get your message out? It would seem to me it would take much more of a campaign to explain your positions and where you are. Does Honolulu have a ballot book? Do they put out anything in writing for elections? ARAKAWA: Yes. HERKES: Because if you had ten candidates running for every council seat, you wouldn't be able to keep track of them. Who puts that out? ARAKAWA: The newspapers. FELIX: The media. They do a very commendable job. They do spreadsheets on all the candidates and we have forums at which we can articulate our positions. We have debates. You see, we have a rather unique system on Oahu. We have Neighborhood Boards. HERKES: Well, we're going to get into that in a minute. FELIX: Neighborhood Boards afford all candidates an opportunity to have a forum within which to articulate their positions. There are 38 of them and there are four in my district. HERKES: I was going to say, it's not one district, one Board is it? Of course, you have more people. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 10 of 60 FELIX: I have four Neighborhood Boards and they all think that they're Council Members, but that's okay. It's very challenging. ARAKAWA: In those Neighborhood Board meetings, they have the candidates that are running for Senate or Representative or Council up there debating each other. Even Prosecutors. I have to go to Neighborhood Board meetings. HERKES: Do they take positions in favor of John Henry Felix? We're going to vote for this man as against another? FELIX: Oh yes. They're not supposed to. They're supposed to be neutral but there are times that they sort of - ARAKAWA: They don't take a vote. FELIX: They don't take a vote but they do often times show their prejudices. RAY: George. MARTIN: First I'd like to thank you gentlemen for coming and sharing with us this information, and because of your wealth of information, John, I'd like to ask a little bit more on what was asked about the Green Party. Do you see a way of avoiding, I think what the concern was, that they wouldn't get the same shot? FELIX: I should think they would have a better shot. MARTIN: That's what I thought. FELIX: They would have a better shot. If I were a member of the Green Party, this would be an ideal situation, don't you think so, David? It's more than a fair advantage. RAY: Roland. HIGASHI: Mr. Felix, in your association with the other counties, I believe the other counties are now nonpartisan? FELIX: Yes. HIGASHI: Was Kauai already a nonpartisan in the last election or the election before? FELIX: I think they followed us. ARAKAWA: Yes, they followed Honolulu. FELIX: And they've been functioning quite well. HIGASHI: Have you seen any improvement in their association with their own Council Members? FELIX: We do have an Associations of Counties, HSAC it's called, and although I'm not an active participant, our Rene Mansho who is very active in everything, does a very good job in providing for that kind of liaison and from all the reports that she provides us, it's working quite well. I haven't heard of any problems related to file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 11 of 60 nonpartisan elections. HIGASHI: David, are you familiar with what type of system they use? If they use the same system as Oahu in terms of the Primary Election? ARAKAWA: I'm not sure what Kauai and Maui uses for their nonpartisan elections. And just to get back to something that John Henry mentioned, sometimes it depends on the personalities. It just depends on the personalities of the Mayor and Council and things like that, but I recall being involved, not in an official position but in government, before the nonpartisan elections. It worked the same way. The Republicans and Democrats worked together. HIGASHI: But you're not sure what system they use? Whether it's Oahu system? ARAKAWA: No. IRVINE: I have here, at least from the Honolulu Advertiser, Kauai voted in '96 to go nonpartisan. They ran their elections in '98 as they do in Honolulu, with the 50% plus one and so that's where they are now. HIGASHI: Maui, we're not sure? IRVINE: Kauai. HERKES: Maui just did it so I don't know. HIGASHI: Okay. FELIX: And I think we should point out that the Prosecutor's Office is been nonpartisan ever since that office was put up for election. RAY: Other questions? Marni. HERKES: Can we switch to Neighborhood Boards now? HIGASHI: No, it's not on the agenda. RAY: Well, let's make sure we get all the questions out on nonpartisan first. John. SANTANGELO: I'd like to go back to what you said originally because as you can see, there's some posturing here on partisanship and being one of the few Republicans around, John, I never got any money either. I found myself frustrated on the council because I feel like that's what it's about is public safety. It's about some very basic things and we find, especially in this county, and I'm not real complimentary of this council, of a lot of expounding - a lot of posturing on that kind of basis and not really getting down to the nuts and bolts. The glass thing, again, is something that we're dealing with here because there seems to be a problem, but that's State money that came down, and it came through the county, and apparently we're not handling that well. But, coming back to serving the people about these very basic public safety issues, and roads or solid waste, do you find your council more focused on the job at hand rather than the more philosophical - ? FELIX: I find that they're more focused on public health and safety issues rather than on partisan politics issues. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 12 of 60 ARAKAWA: That's the way they are, though, I mean pragmatic. FELIX: That's just the way they are. They're very pragmatic. The dynamics at the City Council of Honolulu is really quite extraordinary because you'll find different people joining up with unlikely allies to take on this venture or that venture. I think it's very healthy. SANTANGELO: I find that interesting. On the council, I felt like once elected, you served every man, woman and child, regardless whether they voted or not, and my record shows that I supported issues Green, Democratic and Republican. FELIX: That transcend partisan politics. SANTANGELO: And I worked well with my colleague. I find that if I was to work on the legislative side, very definitely would I be partisan, but the county is not philosophical in that way. We're not dealing with the kind of issues that are out there and I'm glad to hear you say that. FELIX: You articulated that far better than either one of us could. That's right on target. SANTANGELO: Well thank you and I do thank you for being here. RAY: Other questions in regard to the nonpartisan. Okay. The issue of Neighborhood Boards has surfaced. That's not anything that - ARAKAWA: May we leave now? RAY: So is that the pleasure of this group? You'd like to explore that? It's not anything we - HERKES: I'd like to explore while we have somebody that works under Neighborhood Boards. HIGASHI: Before we proceed, it's not an agendized item. Are we violating the Sunshine Law? YUEN: It would be better if it had been on the agenda but I assume the Commission is not going to vote on it. Why don't you just go ahead and ask a few questions and then the gentlemen can go. HIGASHI: Then I think we should agendize it for another meeting so that if people have some opinions, they can talk about it. FELIX: We'd love to come back. HIGASHI: I mean even if we discuss it today, Mr. Chairman. RAY: Okay. We'll delay that so - HERKES: He said we could discuss it today but we need to put on a future agenda. HIGASHI: So if other people want to talk about it later. HERKES: I would suspect that it's going to be on several future agendas. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 43 of 60 HIGASHI: I think he needs some direction as to - MARTIN: Yes, I think we've got to direct him. Do we want nonpartisan first? It's like the question was asked in the last meeting which Roland did not attend, do we want to continue on with the Managing Director. I mean, once we do, repeating myself, releasing the hounds and letting Chris do his job through direction of us, do we want nonpartisan, yes or no? If yes, then this is the form that we want it in. If no, then let's go on. RAY: Okay. John. SANTANGELO: In terms of procedure, there's a couple of things that come up. One is I just want to go through, step by step, the things that Councilman Tyler brought up. I don't see a need to have full minutes. Those are available to the public. Not everybody likes to read the way Curtis does, those sort of things. And keeping people informed is important. No matter what we do, in the last minute when something controversial comes up, people are going to be yelling and screaming. But articles, I think, would be good. And there's a way that it addresses this procedure. I would like to see articles written though. For my comfort zone, at least have one check and balance so if you wrote them and John looked at them, or I don't need to see them, but at least a check and balance. I'd like to see it go by - And then if we submit them to certain magazines and stuff, that they're not given to editorial interpretation. Within the article, they'll do whatever they want. And so then, with that in mind, as far as meeting, Mr. Chairman, in which we the procedure goes, I would like to have actually tackle this and there's other that aren't here know we're going to every effort to be here. So take that up and say, we're going to and that way, we can agendize it. do that at that meeting so that they if it's nonpartisan, if it's a members can make Managing Director, let's discuss that and we're going to vote on that, HERKES: I guess I'd make a motion or suggest that Chris Yuen get a copy of the City and County of Honolulu Nonpartisan Charter sections and that he present us with an appropriate adaptation of that same form for our next meeting for discussion, and I second John's comments that everybody needs to know that we may take a vote, a preliminary vote. Chris, you told us that ten years ago they took preliminary votes and then they went back and this could be one of those kind of preliminary votes, as Roland calls them, straw votes. Is everybody in favor and are we going to proceed? YUEN: I don't know if I would call what they did a preliminary vote. They would be fairly committed to what they were doing and the second vote was really to approve the exact language. I try not to overstep my role and I don't want to insert the meat of the decision on my draft. I want the Commission to make that decision. I think through the specific suggestion you just made on nonpartisan elections, if the Commission votes to have me do this, I'd be very happy to do it. I don't think that you need to have that much - if your proposal is that you have a discussion and you have a vote at the next meeting on adopting change in the County elections to the way that it's done in the City and County of Honolulu with a nonpartisan election, and a two stage election, that is, at the same time of the Primary Election you have the first nonpartisan election, and if somebody gets more than 50% of the vote, then that person is elected outright. If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, then they go on to a run-off election at the same time as the General Election, and of course, the winner of that gets elected. I have just said it. HERKES: Nobody seconded my motion. YUEN: And if that gets on the agenda to be voted on at the next meeting and the Commission votes to send that to the voters, I can, without a great deal of trouble, prepare the exact language. I think the way I just explained it, the way David file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 44 of 60 Arakawa explained it, is clear enough so that the Commission can, without having the exact language before them, discuss it and decide whether they think this is a good proposal for our County or not, and I think this is a little bit more efficient a way to actually go about doing it because if the Commission, at the meeting, comes up with a slightly different way that they'd do it, maybe they want 55% at the first election instead of 50%, then I can go ahead and make those changes, but in this particular question that you're raising, of the nonpartisan, I think it's been well enough explained so that you don't need to have an exact draft of how they do it in the City and County before you have a discussion and of course, this is whether or not it's a thing to be put to the voters of the County is not a legal question for me. It's entirely up to you as the Commissioners. RAY: Sue. IRVINE: Did John second this motion? SANTANGELO: I did, and it is on the agenda. The Managing Director isn't. IRVINE: It's now up for discussion and I wanted to say that today, for the first time, I heard about this third way of running a nonpartisan election which they were talking about, not in the County of Honolulu, but they said sometimes, when in the Primary, you get the two top voters, then they automatically go into the General rather than saying if you get 50% plus one, winner takes all, because in the Primary, not as many people vote as in the General and you might, therefore, still have the situation that we have in this County right now where our elected official did not get a majority of the vote. You know what I mean? The majority of the General Election voters. They would have had the majority in the Primary but that's not as big a percentage as the other. SANTANGELO: What are the differences? IRVINE: I guess I didn't make it clear. SANTANGELO: No, in the vote in the Primary and General? IRVINE: Fewer people vote in a Primary Election. I don't have that statistic right now but it's significant, I think. I think so. We'll look at it. I'll find out. RAY: George. MARTIN: Point of clarification on what's being discussed here. Simple mathematics, no matter what form you have, if you have 50 plus one, there's no way you're going to get more votes than that. That person is the automatic winner. Fifty plus one, not 51%. Fifty plus one. Now, to touch on what John said earlier about we'll put it down on the agenda and we'll bring it forth. It's on the agenda right now. It says nonpartisan presentation. I take this Commission probably more serious than other people, whatever the case may be. If we're going to have to hold people's hands and make sure that they're here at meetings, something's wrong with that person. Sharron's been doing a great job. She sends us this in the mail, any information we need. She even leaves a message on my answering machine that the meeting is - that's great, so I'm here. If the person that's not here is not here, eh, but to have them notified that we may be taking a vote - at any time we could be taking a vote. If you're going to take this Commission seriously, be here. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 Back To Page 45 of 60 Now, to speak on this motion, as Chris is saying, and no offense Chris, but he's our attorney. We direct him what we want to do, not he's going to tell us. I've never been part and parcel to that. I mean he's hired help and therefore we direct him to do what we want him to do, plain and simple. It's great to have his ideas come back to us at some point in time, but we've got to direct. Now if you want to move on this particular issue, fine, let's move on it. KUROZAWA: John, this discussion on the motion. Actually, I know Chris is skating around this but I actually agree totally with what Chris is saying because I think it's an inefficient use of time to have him write the whole proposal that we have. We should be able to read Honolulu's proposal and figure out what, more or less, what we want, and when we get to the point where we know for sure we're going to do the nonpartisan thing, then we should ask him to write it. But if he spends eight hours writing this thing up and he has to revise it 10 times, I think it's a waste of his time. MARTIN: Or if we decide not to do it. KUROZAWA: That's right and I think we can still get the gist of what we need to do by reading Honolulu's or Maui's proposal under nonpartisan thing. RAY: Anymore discussion on this motion? John. SANTANGELO: And if we need to tighten it up, maybe we can, Marni, because I'd like to see us move forward on nonpartisan. The reason for that is I'd like to see partisan removed for the reasons stated here by the experts that we brought in, and secondly, to have a majority winner, so that's why I'm concerned about that, Sue. We have this thing where we've got these run-offs and the public says they didn't get the majority of the vote. Well, let's set it up where they do. And so if it's efficient to say 50 plus one in the Primary, and that works, I can go with that. I don't mind the two going to the General, so I'm in favor of the Honolulu style and the only question, I guess, is if we deal with the 50 plus one in the Primary. I don't have a problem with that. I like that. It saves some money and time right then and there, when it's a 50 plus one of the total votes cast, but that's up to this Commission. I'd like to see the nonpartisan move forward and I'd like to see a General and a Primary. RAY: Okay, but that's not the motion. The motion is to have our attorney draw up a draft so let's get that out of the way. SANTANGELO: Then I withdraw my second. HERKES: I will warn you that I will not vote on anything that I don't have in front of me in writing, in the form of a proposal. I'm not voting on Honolulu City and County. I want it adapted to fit into our Charter so I want to know what it looks like when it fits in our Charter. RAY: What question do you have over the City and County proposal as far how that would fit into our Charter? HERKES: I've never seen the City and County proposal so I don't know where it is. I must have it somewhere. Yes, it's in there somewhere. I just haven't read it. This was on my desk today so I haven't seen it. So you want me to vote on the City and County Charter? ?: No, to have him bring that forward. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 8-25-99.htm 7/1/2011 minutes 03-11-00 Page 1 of 17 Back To: Home Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Charter Main Page HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Public Hearing March 11, 2000 Waimea Civic Center Waimea, Hawaii Members: Present: J. Ray, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, G. Martin (from 9:15 a.m.), G. Yoshiyama Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog, D. Kurozawa, J. Santangelo And 6 members of the public in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. RAY: I'd like to call the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission Public Hearing to order. It's Saturday, March 1 lth. We're at the Waimea Civic Center in Waimea. Attendance. Present at this time, myself John Ray, Roland Higashi, Steve Bess, Marni Herkes, Sue Irvine, and Gary Yoshiyama, and we're expecting a couple of more folks to come in. If nobody objects, prior to Statements from the Public, if anybody's in a hurry and would like to go ahead and make a statement before I go through a brief summary, they're welcome to do so. So would anybody like to do that? Otherwise I'd like to run through briefly a summary of where we are right now. So is that okay? And on the table there are the short form summaries that we mailed out, as well as more detailed summaries Initially I want to make it very clear that this is very much a work in process. We're very open to input on what we've suggested, as well as anything else that the public may want to submit. We understand that even though it's kind of late in the process for us, that generally people don't engage things like this until they get a little further along and they have some meat to chew on and whatever. So, that's why we've been pushing to get proposed amendments out as quickly as possible. So, like I say, they're very much in progress and there's lots of things still to be decided, and a lot of votes still to be made, especially in terms of the language and the refining of some of these proposals. So we'll be doing that over the next couple of months before we take our final votes on the proposed amendments, and of course, all that will just be proposed for the election, which will be voted on by the general public in November. Going through the proposed amendments as listed in the summary, first the non-partisan elections I think that's pretty clear as far as, not only what that's all about but, how that would work in terms the Primary vs. the General Election if someone wins 50% plus one votes, they automatically win in the Primary. Otherwise, the top two vote getters go on to the Special Election. There's also an explanation that deals with the second proposed amendment, the possibility of having 3 at -large seats. So, in other words, if that was voted in then it explains how that would work for the at -large seats in a non-partisan election. So, in other words, if both those first two pass, then that would be applicable, that scenario. The three at -large seats. I think that's pretty clear. The one area that I want to go through is the scenario of allowing incumbent Council members, whoever were in office, to run for one at -large seat when this would be implemented in the year 2002. And the reason that's significant is because that would be a one-time exception in regard to the present term limits, which are four-year terms. So, no matter where someone were in terms of term limits, we're talking about a one-time exception, that if you're in office in 2002, you'd be able to run for - The background on that is the term limits didn't start until 1996, so that's when they were implemented. So, in 2002, everybody would have served six years out of the 8 -year term limit. So, if you wanted to run for a 4 -year term in 1996, even though that would take you two years beyond the present term limits, that would be allowed under our proposal. GRAHAM: But not allowed in the distant future if you have six years under your belt, you can't run for a 4 -year term? RAY: Right, it's just a one-time - And a lot of thinking behind that is just that practically speaking, those are the people that file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 03-11-00.html 7/1/2011 minutes 04-01-00 Page 1 of 22 Back To: Home Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Charter main page HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Public Hearing of APRIL 1, 2000 Cooper Center Volcano, Hawaii Members: J. Ray, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi (from 9:24 a.m.), S. Irvine, G. Martin (from 9:32 a.m.), J. Santangelo (from 9:08 a.m.) Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog, D. Kurozawa, G. Yoshiyama And 13 members of the public in attendance. CALL TO ORDER Chairman John Ray called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. RAY: I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Charter Commission. We're holding a public hearing today at the Cooper Center in Volcano, Hawaii. It's Saturday, April 1st. INTRODUCTION OF CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS RAY: Commission members present at this time are myself, John Ray, Chair; Steve Bess; Marni Herkes; and Sue Irvine. And then we're expecting several other Commission members. If you are wondering, we do not need a quorum to conduct these meetings. We voted on that, so if that's an issue with you, we addressed that earlier. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS RAY: I'm going to make some brief introductory remarks, and then go through the Charter proposed Amendments. If anybody has to leave sooner, we'll take testimony before I go through the amendments, if somebody has to get out of here. So, we've been accommodating people if they do need to leave earlier, so let me know if you have signed up to testify and you need to leave earlier. Basically a little background. The original County Charter was constituted in the late 1960's. It's mandated in our County Charter that we review the Charter every ten years, so this is the third review that's taken place in the history of the Charter; one in the early '80s, one 90s, so this is the third. Besides this process that's taking place, there are two other ways that the Charter can be amended: By petition, amendments can be brought forth with signatures representing, I think, 20% of the registered voters in the prior election; and by Council ordinance which is pretty common. The County Council can vote to bring forth a Charter Amendment and then it appears, if it passes by six votes at three Council hearings, then it would appear on the next election. And all three methods of amending the Charter all appear at a General Election for the general public to vote on. So, in any of these cases, they're just proposed amendments that go in front of the voters. So, that's the process in all three cases. We're an eleven member Commission appointed by the Mayor, approved by the Council. We have an appropriated budget of $130,000. The last Charter Review Commission expended $113,000. That was the one about ten years ago. Our chief costs are labor costs. We have a full time Administrative Assistant with a home office, Legal Counsel, meeting costs and public notice, and then fairly substantial printing and advertising costs to get the final product out for the public to understand, just general education, leading up to the election. To date, out of that $130,000 appropriated, we have expended a little over $50,000 and have about $80,000 remaining file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 04-01-00.htm 7/1/2011 minutes 04-01-00 Page 2 of 22 We've been meeting since last February. We've held 29 meetings to date, which included nine public hearings to date. All the meetings are publicly noticed, and in addition, for the public hearings, we've sent out informational packets to, I think, 280 community civic organizations around the island, prior to holding both sets of public hearings. We did six public hearings last summer, and we're engaged in four public hearings right now. So, prior to that, we sent out informational packets to a pretty comprehensive group of organizations around the island. We're presently discussing 19 proposed amendments. These are amendments which have, or did have, a pretty strong level of support by a majority of the Commission members, but we haven't even voted on some of these in a preliminary fashion. Anyway, they're all subject to a final vote before we go forward, but not necessarily will all these appear. In fact I feel pretty comfortable saying a number of them, we've already pretty much reached agreement, we probably won't go forward with. And there are some other suggestions that have come up from the public that we will be considering. But we wanted to engage the public with something concrete sooner rather than later because, generally, folks aren't interested until they have something before them to look at. So, we wanted to come out, even though these are somewhat preliminary in nature, sooner rather than later. We hope to wrap up our final proposed amendments with the ballot language by June or so, and then have a fairly lengthy time before the election for general education on the proposed amendments that we'll come up with. So this is the last of the four public hearings that we've got scheduled right now. We'll be holding regular and extra Commission meetings, in the next month or two, to come up with a final product. So, I want to briefly run through - I guess you all have copies of the proposed amendments that are up for discussion today. Does anybody need to testify immediately, prior to me running through these? I'll go through them pretty quickly. Del. PRANKE: The only thing - Apple and I have a noon meeting but we're not in any rush. I don't want to jump ahead of anybody. RAY: Going through them, one through nineteen. The non-partisan elections. This would basically effect all County elected officials. Should this pass, everyone running at a County level would run on a non-partisan basis. This has been adopted by every other county in the state; by the City and County of Honolulu about eight years ago, and by Maui and Kauai more recently. The way this process works in the election is if in the Primary you win 50% of the votes plus one, you win outright. Otherwise, the top two folks go on to the General. If item number 2 should pass, in other words, creating at -large seats, we've also addressed that and proposed language in regard to how the at -large seats would work in the Primary and the General Election, and basically for the three at -large seats, the language suggested today is that the top six voters in the Primary would go to the General. If there were six or fewer, there would be no Primary. There would only be a General Election. So, we've tried to follow models that are most commonly used in other jurisdictions across the country. And these, like I say, are very common. In fact, I think close to 80% of all similar jurisdictions have non-partisans at this point in time. It's pretty routine how these things work other places. Number 2, the Council to include at -large seats. This is probably the item that we've received the most amount of testimony on. Probably the most controversial. This would change our present Council representation from the nine single member districts, running for two-year terms, to having six single member districts and they'd be the same districts as the State House of Representatives. They'd be six single member districts running for the two-year terms, and then the suggestion is that we'd have at -large seats which would run for four-year terms. We're up in the air about exactly how we'd implement this, and the effect on term limits. We had term limits kick in in 1996 that created four two-year terms for the County Council. So, we're in a little bit of a dilemma as far as should this pass, when to implement it; what effect it would have on the term limits. And a couple of possibilities are that you could implement it in 2004. In other words, it wouldn't take place until four years after it was voted in. I don't really like that idea of pushing it that far into the future. If we were to implement it in 2002, there are couple of things we could do. We could make the first at -large term for two years only, and then after that the at -large seats would be for four-year terms. If we did that, it would have two pluses, in my mind Number 1, it would make the terms concurrent with the Mayor's term. And the plus of that is a lot of people that are in favor of the four-year terms - One dynamic that they like is that you're training Council people and grooming them to run for the Mayor's race. In other words, these would be island -wide elected Council terms, and logically people that may be interested in running for Mayor. So, if that were the case, it would probably make sense to have those terms run concurrent with the Mayor's term, in the same cycle. The other thing that would do is it would avoid any conflict with the term limits because the first suggestion we came up with a proposal is that we would allow a one-time exception in 2002, when this kicked in, to allow any of the seated Council members to run for a four-year term, so if you'd been in office since 1996, and you were allowed to run for a four- year at -large seat in 2002, it means your term would be extended to ten years instead of eight. So that would be the practical effect of that. But that would also create a term that wouldn't be concurrent with the Mayor's. So, I like the idea, and I'm going to be arguing but we'll see how it comes out, for the first at -large term being for two years only. Then it would be concurrent with the Mayor's and wouldn't conflict with the term limits. But in any case, all this depends on whether it passes or not, in the first place. Another dilemma in regard to creating these at -large seats, and doing away with the nine Council seats is its effect on Boards and Commissions. In other words, presently we have two Commissions that are tied to the nine Council districts, Planning and Police. We're also recommending, in here, tying the Water Commission to the nine Council file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 04-01-00.htm 7/1/2011 minutes 04-12-00 Page 1 of 26 Back To: Home Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Charter main page HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Meeting of April 12, 2000 Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Center Attendance: J. Ray, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa (from 5:20 p.m.), G. Martin, G. Yoshiyama, Counsel C. Yuen Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog, S. Bess, J. Santangelo And 6 members of the public in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 5:09 p.m. RAY: I'd like to call the April 12th meeting of the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. We're at the Hilo Lagoon Centre. Attendance. Presently, myself John Ray; Chair; Roland Higashi, Vice Chair; Marni Herkes; Sue Irvine; George Martin; and Gary Yoshiyama. Statements from the Public. We have several people signed up. I'm going to do this a little bit out of order. I'd like Mr. Wurdeman to come up first because we're dealing with this Hawaii Redevelopment Agency issue, and Mr. Wurdeman's testimony, actually, is what triggered bringing this issue before us. So, we've all got Mr. Wurdeman's testimony in front of us. Could you just briefly describe - WURDEMAN: Okay. This is in regard to the HRA, and as some of you may recall, several years ago, before I came into this job, there was an attempt to abolish it - Feeling was that it had served its purpose - by the Council, by resolution. I believe it was by resolution. And subsequently Mr. Ross brought to everyone's attention that the law requires that the only way to get rid of it is by Charter change, such as Honolulu has done in regard to their Redevelopment Agency. So, we were forced to reconstitute it and it meets about every two or three months, and doesn't really have a whole lot of business to do. And in my humble opinion, is an unneeded bit of bureaucracy and so I recommended that it be placed on the ballot so that the public can get rid of it, and get rid of it legally. RAY: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Wurdeman? We have our Planning Director here. Since she is here, Ms. Goldstein, do you have anything to add to that? GOLDS 1EIN: Not really I think, though, that there is a duplication and maybe overlap in jurisdiction, although it's clear that HRA is the one that needs to grant, at this point, the approvals on the uses within the area. The Kaiko'o Plan has an end date built in, which is both July and August of this year. And given that, I'm not sure then what the ramifications would be if we had an HRA that continues on and the plan itself is no longer in effect, whether they then have to reevaluate the situation if they're still in existence and have to then adopt a new plan or what the effect would be. RAY: So, that might be another argument to do away with it? GOLDS ILIN: Yes. I think our position is that it's no longer necessary. RAY: Okay. Any questions for Ms. Goldstein? And now, David Reed, and David, could you state your position in regard to HRA, please? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 04-12-00.htm 7/1/2011 minutes 04-12-00 Page 11 of 26 then `other', and some people did talk to us about overall philosophy — what were we trying to do. And I thought it was good to think about that because I've, sort of, come to the conclusion that I've put in an awful lot of time on this, and we've come up with a lot of ideas, but unless they're really going to change something significantly, I don't think we should clutter up our ballot for the voters, because I think it's going to get confusing, and just plain turn people off if we have anything that's more than necessary on the ballot. RAY: So, do you want to go through your list? How about if I go through - HERKES: How about if you just start at 1 and ask for comments? IRVINE: Start at number 1 and let's see. RAY: Yes, why don't we do that. Okay. Good idea. And then we'll do `others' after we go through the 19. So, on non-partisan elections. In my mind, the comments have been generally favorable, generally in support of, and generally non -controversial in terms of people being able to understand and then relate to this issue. IRVINE: I guess I'd have to differ with that somewhat. I mean, obviously, the Green Party is violently opposed to this because they feel that it is destroying the attempts of third parties to get started. I was interested in what Roger Evans, Republican, said up in Volcano, and that was that if it's truly non-partisan, we'd have to outlaw parties from contributing to these people because otherwise, the one party in our State which has been in power for many years, would finance the two top candidates that would be on the ballot. I wondered if Chris had any comment. Is it possible to say a party cannot give money, or something, to a candidate? RAY: I would just look to the fact that close to 80% of all municipal governments in the whole United States are non- partisan. Every other jurisdiction in the State has voted non-partisan elections, so I don't think that's a particularly controversial issue. I couldn't even understand what Roger was talking about. IRVINE: You didn't understand what he - He said that if parties can give to candidates, then the one party that runs our State - he is a Republican I think he always runs as a Republican - will provide money to two of their members to be the top candidates in the General Election, and I don't know whether other jurisdictions have, or whether it's even legal or anything, to say - RAY: Well, it's not. The amount of money that the parties can give is limited. IRVINE: Okay. RAY: And that was upheld in the last Governor's election, if you'll recall, when the Lingle campaign was talking about bringing in outside party money, so I don't think there's a way that the party can overly influence in terms of their contributions. It's my understanding that the Republican Party can only give the same limits as the individual. Isn't that right, Roland? HIGASHI: Right. IRVINE: Okay. HIGASHI: Well, I'm not sure, but as a practical matter, on the County elections, the parties don't give monies to the candidates. They support them in other ways, rallies and stuff like that. But if it's a non-partisan, they still can belong to a party but run as a non-partisan. They don't have a label. But, as far as giving money, it's not a common thing, that they give money to candidates. YUEN: If I could just make, along the same lines, one more comment. If there's more than one Democrat running, I don't know how the Democratic Party would decide which person to give the money to in the first go around, which is the - HERKES: They would give to neither. They wouldn't do it. MARTIN: They wouldn't. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 04-12-00.htm 7/1/2011 minutes 04-12-00 Page 12 of 26 HIGASHI: They don't. HERKES: They don't. MARTIN: And in the past, what transpired is the Primary Election. The winner comes out and that's when the Party, in fact, goes behind and supports them 100%. As Roland indicated, though, on the County level, there's no monetary gratuities. Again, the fear factor that the Green Party has, and what we've heard from the individual in Volcano, is that they're going to lose some identity. And I don't see that happening. As a Democrat myself, you run on your ability to do the job. And actually to me, being non-partisan, it cuts ties from, per se, the ` old boy network', if you will. So, the hysteria that we've heard from the Green Party and this one individual Republican is just that, hysteria. They're going to lose their identity and possibly the ability to do what they've done in the past. Yes, I see that possibly happening. There may be some validity to what the Green Party is saying, but if they are that good, it should enhance them, and not deter them. RAY: Marni. HERKES: I'd like to get back to what Sue said about policy setting. If we are, in truth, trying to attract more people to run for office, trying to open up the system, this is not rocket science. It's not something that we're blazing a trail because 80% of the jurisdictions have non-partisan. All of the counties in the state have non-partisan. There's a reason for that and that's because it has been proven to open up elections, to be able to have people that don't have ties to political parties run for elections. So, I'd like to put my oar in the water in favor of non-partisan in spite of the fact that I'm going to get in trouble for it. RAY: Well, we're not taking any votes tonight. MARTIN: I think we should have some sort of a straw vote to see if we want to leave it here or not. Is it going to take to the next meeting to decide if we're going to leave something, or begin to consider hacking away and getting rid of it? I mean, when are we going to do that, if that's what you're looking to do? No time like the present. KUROZAWA: But John, I think your idea's a good one. If we can go through each one, talk about it, give our input, and then decide whether we're going to, because some of these will drop out probably, and some will stay. RAY: Yes, there're only 7 people here tonight, so unless there's some huge shift in - HERKES: We are the 7. MARTIN: Yes, I was going to discuss that too. At some point in time, do you expect everybody to show up? IRVINE: Maybe 9. YUEN: Let me make a suggestion, and this is really out of the spirit of fairness to everybody on the Commission and also out of spirit of fairness to getting proposals passed that a majority of the Commission may be in favor of. I would suggest that, at some point soon, the final up or down vote be scheduled on all the amendments, and that the announcement of the meeting go out to all the Commission members that this is going to be it. And the reason is that you are going to need, as we discussed before, 6 votes in favor of a measure for it to go on the ballot, and if you take a vote tonight on something, for example, and it turns out 5 to 2 in favor, I don't think it's really fair to say well, we killed it, at that point. But if you have a meeting that everybody has had ample forewarning of, rather than just continually voting on things meeting after meeting and hoping that enough people show up to pass it, the fair thing to do is to let everybody know that if they care about getting something on the ballot that they better show up for a particular meeting, and if the votes are not there then it doesn't pass. MARTIN: Question, Mr. Chair. In that venue, as what Chris just indicated, and this is purely hypothetical, but is it possible to get a proxy vote from another Commissioner? YUEN: No. HERKES: I'm going to give you proxy votes if you do it on the 29th. I'm going to give you a lot of trouble too. MARTIN: No. The answer's no. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 04-12-00.htm 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 1 of 62 Back To: Home Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Charter main page HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Center Attendance: J. Ray, E. Alonzo, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa (from 5:15 p.m.), J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama, Counsel C. Yuen Absent: K. Balog, G. Martin And 14 members of the public in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. RAY: I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission. It is Wednesday, May 10th, 5 p.m. We're in the Hilo Lagoon Centre, Liquor Control Conference Room. Attendance. This evening at the present time: Sue Irvine, Marni Herkes, Steve Bess, Vice Chairman Roland Higashi, John Santangelo, Gary Yoshiyama, Eddie Alonzo, and myself John Ray, Chair. We are expecting two more members. One of our members, George Martin, is out of town. He's on the mainland, so we knew that he wouldn't be here. Statements from the Public. We have a number people signed up. If you're not, you need to fill out a form other there and hand it across to the desk. The first person signed up is Del Pranke, followed by Mai Apple McCullough. Del. PRANKE: Thank you, Mr. Ray, Mr. Chair and Commission members. I'm here to talk against several proposed items. We've talked about these some before, but new things have happened in the last couple of weeks that I will bring to your attention, I hope to help you to understand why I've taken some of the positions I have. I won't talk about all of these because I know there are other people that will talk about some of them. I've talked with them and they pretty much have some of the same ideas. So I'm going to skip the non-partisan and the Council 3 at -large seats. I'm opposed to those. The Fire Commission and the Police Commission items, number 4 and 16, I'm going to lump together. The Fire Commission amendment, as it reads now - it might be changed - reads essentially the same as the current Police Commission, and the current Police Commission has trouble doing its own job without us getting it fixed. And the way I read the proposed amendment, that was proposed before, would simply cause the Police Commission to get farther involved in the Police Department without helping solve the problem of real oversight. The Police Commission should not be involved in running the Police Department. The Police Chief is the only person who should do that. When you blur the lines of command, you cause more problems than you solve. And the way I read it, the amendment put in by the Police Commission would simply do that, simply put them more involved inside the Police Department. Whoever set up the Police Commission before did at least one good thing and that was to keep the Police Commission completely out of the day-to-day operations of the Police Department. That file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 21 of 62 SANTANGELO: So you need to get Council approval. Okay? IRVINE: Right. SANTANGELO: If the Council says no, but you're obligated by law to do it, but your lawmaker doesn't, now you've got a real dilemma. IRVINE: It says 'the Council may, by two-thirds vote of its entire membership, authorize — RAY: But it may not, as well. SANTANGELO: It may not, and yet you're still legally obliged to defend these people. IRVINE: Well, then they're acting outside the law if they don't because it says in impeachment cases, that the County cannot defend, etc. SANTANGELO: Again, I appreciate that, Sue, but what you go back to is if you've elected someone to represent you, they have the right to vote yes or no, so you can't say you've broken the law because you voted no. You see, it's a dilemma, and that's what this was going to address but I think it's very complicated and maybe we'll just let them deal with it. RAY: Mr. Bess. BESS: I would speak in favor of this provision. However, in the interest of presenting a ballot to the public that is small enough and has issues that are of true importance — I mean this is an issue that may or may not arise, and given the number of amendments that we are proposing to the public, I am voting to delete. RAY: All in favor of deleting, raise your right hand. HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners. RAY: We're recording all of this, Jason, if you want to check the record afterwards. Any other proposals for deletions before we go through? SANTANGELO: Mr. Chairman, just one little statement for clarification. In deleting these — we've deleted quite a few things here, and I think it's good for the record to show that a lot of this came up because people brought it forward and we wanted to give it a fair and open hearing. And this may well be the result of that fair and open hearing. So anyway, that's my explanation for going against some of these things. RAY: Thank you. I think I've stated on numerous occasions that nobody really engages the process until they have something concrete in front of them. But we erred in that direction to put it out there even though we knew there'd be a number of changes. First off, non-partisan elections — And so we're voting on the proposed amendments as we have previously voted on and established language around. So I'd like to entertain a motion, and then if someone would like to propose an amendment, we'll take that. So, can I have a motion to approve the non-partisan elections? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 22 of 62 HERKES: So moved. RAY: Second? YOSHIYAMA: Second. IRVINE: Discussion. It came to my attention, after reading through this I didn't realize when we put this in that we were following, I think, City and County wording on this which means that someone can be elected in a Special Election at the same time as we hold our Primary Elections. Maui County wording, on the same thing, provides that if there are only two people running in a winner -take -all election, they would both go onto the ballot at the time of the General Election, when we have like 15% more people actually voting, and I would really like to see us use the Maui County language instead of the Honolulu County. It changes things a bit, but I do have a copy here of the Maui County, that we all have had for a while. But I would move that we insert that rather than the City and County of Honolulu, in the interest of allowing more people to vote. RAY: So are you moving that as an amendment? IRVINE: Yes. RAY: Do we have a second? HERKES: Well, did we have a motion on the floor? SANTANGELO: We're amending the motion so you need to second it. HERKES: I'll second. RAY: Discussion on the proposed amendment. SANTANGELO: If I'm to understand, Sue, then the intent of this — more voters, but the intent is that in a General there will be people running for all offices. IRVINE: Yes. HERKES: No? Chris is shaking his head. YUEN: I think, if I'm hearing you correctly, if only two file, then that race is not decided at the Primary at all, and they both go on to the General. And if there are three or more running, and one person in the Primary gets the 50% plus one vote, then that's pau and you're elected outright. HERKES: In the Primary? IRVINE: I don't think so. HERKES: So that means we're back to where we started from. YUEN: No, it's a little bit different because the way it was voted on when we first did this was that if you got 50% plus one in the — we'll call it the Primary for simplicity; it's not really the Primary. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 23 of 62 HERKES: In the first election. YUEN: In the first election, or the Primary, if you got 50% plus one, you're elected outright, and you don't count blank or spoiled ballots. So, the way it was voted on the first time, if there are only two people running, unless they tie, guarantee somebody's going to be elected outright at the first election. The way Maui does it is if there are only two people running for the office, they skip the first election and they run them off in the General, and I thought that was what the motion was because that's the way Maui works. But in Maui, and in the way that we had discussed earlier, if there are three or more running, and somebody gets 50% plus one out of those three, then they're elected outright in the first election and you don't go on. HERKES: And that takes them out of the second election, however. It takes both people out of the second election. YUEN: That does take it out of the second. HERKES: Well, it takes all three, but you're not even taking two into the second election, the top two. YUEN: Right. You can do it, that you always take the top two into the second election. That's not been what has been discussed. HERKES: Nobody does that now. YUEN: Right. Let me look at Maui's again to make absolutely sure, but I'm pretty sure that that's not the way they do it in Maui. HERKES: Sue's point was a good point, that more people vote in the General Election. You have less candidates running in the General Election. IRVINE: The bottom paragraph talks about ties in the Primary. SANTANGELO: But we could go back to what we just deleted too. That's that situation when you have three or more running, very seldom would you have someone get a majority vote. IRVINE: Yes. HERKES: Well, getting 50%, yes. YUEN: Maui is as I discussed it, and if you — No, I'm sorry. Sue is correct. If there are three or more, they automatically take two into the General. So, if we want to call that, there's three different ways of doing it. SANTANGELO: Adding expense. IRVINE: I just think people - YUEN: So I then need to ask if Sue wants to make the amendment so that you automatically take two into the General — you take the top two into the General, or do you want to only pass two automatically into the General, if there are only two running? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 24 of 62 IRVINE: What if there's only two running? Why don't they just go into the General? YUEN: That's the way Maui does it. HERKES: They will. Mr. Ray, do we want to vote on non-partisan and then vote on how? SANTANGELO: That's what we're doing. No, you have to do it this way. RAY: We have to amend it if we are, and then vote on the motion as amended, if it is. YUEN: Let me clarify this. I'm sorry. The way Maui does it is that if there are only two running, you don't have an election at all in the Primary. They both run off in the General and the winner wins in the General. If there are three or more running, they do have an election in the Primary, but the top two go over into the General. SANTANGELO: Regardless of one getting a majority? YUEN: Regardless of one getting the 50% plus one. The way the City and County does it is the way that was voted on by the Commission the first time through which is that if you get the 50% plus one, no matter how many are running, if you get that in the first, or Primary, election, you don't have a race in the second election. If nobody gets 50% plus one, then the top two go over into the General Election. RAY: So, does everybody understand the amendment? The amendment is to vote, basically, as Chris just described, as Sue introduced the method that's in the Maui County Charter. Okay, we're going to vote. BESS: No, I'm unclear. Can you state what's in the Maui County Charter again? What's on the table here. YUEN: And let me just say one more thing. The way I read Maui, I think their Mayor is still a partisan and their Council is non-partisan, just to throw different wrinkle in there. But what I understand the motion to be, like we had done, we were going to go all non-partisan. The amendment is that if there are only two candidates running for a particular office, that those two candidates will not appear in the first election and they will automatically go to the General, and then the winner wins in the General. If there are three or more candidates running for a particular office, they will be voted on in the first election, and the top two will always go on to the General to be run off, no matter how many more votes one gets than the other. SANTANGELO: I'm going to speak against the amendment simply because, again, there's been an awful lot of discussion about money, and I know the 15%, and Sue, we both know that in a Presidential election, you get a lot more voters. It goes up and down, and it's really up to the voters to get off their can. And having been through these elections, I know what it's like to go through a Primary and then a General, and if the solution is there, if there's a majority winner which is what we haven't had in a while for a lot of things, in the Primary then let it be and I would vote against this amendment and go for the original as we had it. And that's simply a friendly suggestion though. RAY: Further discussion? All in favor of the amendment, raise your right hand. HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Herkes, Irvine, Kurozawa. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 25 of 62 RAY: Opposed? HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Alonzo, Bess, Higashi, Ray, Santangelo, Yoshiyama. RAY: Okay, the amendment fails to carry. We're at the main motion in regard to a non-partisan election as we had originally voted on, and I think everybody understands that. Yes sir, you'd like to speak to the main motion? YOSHIYAMA: No, I want to make an amendment. I'd like to propose an amendment that we delete our proposed Section (e) relating to at -large Council election. IRVINE: Second. RAY: All in favor of that amendment, raise your right hand. HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners. SANTANGELO: I'd like to speak to the main motion, just real quick. As a Republican, I've had my Party beat me to death on not supporting non-partisan, and frankly, that's probably why I am supporting it. Having served this County, and along with you, John, as a Republican, I felt like that had very little to do with what I was as an elected official. I felt like once you're elected, you are there to serve all the people: Whether they voted or not; whether they're registered or not; whether they're male, female, child or adult; on a County level. On a State and a Federal level, you're dealing in some very different territory that's really working in our lives on a different level, but County, or the services, it's a different type of quality of life, and I firmly believe that partisan politics has no place in it, and I, therefore, support that for that reason. RAY: Ms. Herkes. HERKES: I'm a member of a recognized Party that's also against non-partisan elections, but I am going to vote in favor of it and, during this discussion, I've read a lot of stuff on it. I know it's the most popular form in the United States, and all that stuff, but I've been especially interested to watch my reaction in the mayoral race in Honolulu. That is not two Democrats running against each other. It's two people running against each other. A very highly visible campaign, very hard fought, and I haven't heard the word `Democrat' once. I've heard Mufi Hanneman running against Jeremy Harris, and I like that. I really like that. That gives me a chance to really look at them on their qualifications. I can't vote for either one of them, but it's been an interesting process for me to look at that. RAY: Any other? IRVINE: I'd just like to say I'm going to vote against this amendment. I'm not a member of a Party like some of the rest of you, but I have come to the conclusion, after listening to testimony and doing a lot of reading, and thinking about it, that it really isn't a bad idea to have somebody stand on a platform that indicates their basic philosophy that, even on a County level, there are different ways of handling things that have to do with basic philosophy, such as the Green Party. National Parties need grassroots support and it starts at the County level. I just have a feeling that there may be a correlation between non- partisanship and lack of participation in elections at this time nationally, and I'm just going to vote against it. RAY: Other testimony? All in favor of the non-partisan elections, raise your right hand. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000 Page 26 of 62 HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Alonzo, Bess, Herkes, Higashi, Kurozawa, Ray, Santangelo, Yoshiyama. RAY: Opposed. HANDS RAISED: Commissioner Irvine. RAY: Show one opposed. Moving on to the County Managing Director proposal. Do I have a motion to approve? BESS: I move that we accept the language as proposed except that in our last meeting, we provided for the Office of Management. Is that correct? Rather than Department of Management? RAY: I don't believe so. We discussed it. BESS: All right. I move that we accept the language as proposed with the amendment of Office of Management rather than Department of Management. HIGASHI: Second. SANTANGELO: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. RAY: Yes, I think we need to move the motion forward first. BESS: All right, I'll move. SANTANGELO: Second. BESS: I'd like to move to amend the title of the Department of Management and change that to Office of Management. HIGASHI: Second. IRVINE: Steve, can you give us your reasoning. Is this the Civil Service thing? BESS: Pardon me? IRVINE: Is this Civil Service? BESS: No, it's not based on Civil Service. It's just that I know that we received a lot of testimony saying are we creating another department here, and is this an increase in government. And maybe it makes it more palatable to the public, and that's why I'm suggesting that that be the case. RAY: Other discussion? Marni. HERKES: There's no language in here on outcomes and measurement of performance. There's evaluation. It may be a little late to bring that up now. I really, kind of, missed — it, kind of, went over my head that we need some outcomes measurements. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html 7/1/2011 minutes 05-31-00 Page 1 of 54 Back To: Home Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Charter main page HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Meeting of May 31, 2000 Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Center Attendance: J. Ray, E. Alonzo, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin (from 5:24 p.m.) J. Santangelo, Counsel C. Yuen Absent: K. Balog, G. Yoshiyama And 8 members of the public in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. RAY: I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission. It's Wednesday, May 3 1st, 5:05 p.m. We're at the Hilo Lagoon Centre, Liquor Control Conference Room. Attendance. Present: myself, John Ray, Chair; Roland Higashi, Vice -Chair; Sue Irvine; Marni Herkes; Steve Bess; Dr. Daryl Kurozawa; John Santangelo; Eddie Alonzo; and I believe we're expecting one or two more people. Statements from the Public. We have four people signed up now. You need to sign a written registration form if you'd like to testify. First person signed up this evening is Del Pranke, and the next is Jim Otterson. PRANKE: I'm sorry. I'm kind of confused about the agenda because at the last meeting I thought you were going to go over the proposed changes to the agenda that have been put in by the public, and you never did that. And I don't see it on this agenda. Is it all right if I speak about this letter, because I'm still pushing to have the Police Commission, at least, chosen a different way? YUEN: Yes. RAY: Sure, go ahead. YUEN: Yes, I wouldn't have the Commission take it up as a motion, but no harm in letting him speak to it. PRANKE: I just wanted to bring your attention to Mr. Brunton's letter. It only came to me this morning so I made copies for everybody. I don't intend for you to have to read the whole thing but I wanted to bring your attention to a couple of things. The fifth paragraph, he states he attended the meeting. He decided it was a facade of concern and public expression to maintain the status quo. And then the last page pretty much sums up how sad this meeting was with the Corporation Counsel advising the Police Commission not to allow people to speak on certain items on the agenda because they were covering up for Mr. Carvalho and there were 40 or 50 people there at this meeting. It filled that whole ballroom, of people trying to get their points across and not being allowed to speak on items on the agenda, simply to cover up. This was a political cover-up for Mr. Carvalho who's in deep water right now, and just barely keeping his head up. And I just wanted to say the people of this county are constantly -- people that come up to me constantly, 'why don't they get rid of that guy'. 'How can we do that?' But we can't. As long as the Mayor appoints the Police Commission and the Police Commission appoints the Police Chief, we cannot get rid of him unless the Police Commission decides that they want to. And if they are under political control of the one person who appoints them, then we have no choice. So, we need to give people the opportunity — they're begging for this out there — the opportunity to change the way the Police Commission is chosen. The Police Chief would still be chosen the same way. To allow each County Council person to appoint a Police Commissioner to the Police Commission with the approval of the rest of the Council, and that person would be appointed from their district. It's that simple. It's a simple change. I've written it up for you and I know you folks have it. It's really, really, really important. Right now, this is the thing that everybody talks about every time they come up to me. 'Why are we stuck with this guy?' The reason we're stuck with him is because the Police Commission is under the control of the Mayor. Now, this wouldn't always be the case. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html 7/1/2011 minutes 05-31-00 Page 22 of 54 RAY: All in favor. RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye. Commissioner Martin abstained. RAY: Okay, vote on the main motion as amended. All in favor? RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye. Commissioner Martin abstained. RAY: Now, we've got, as provided by Mr. Yuen, the review of the exact text of the proposed Charter Amendments, the review of the ballot questions and the review of the Digest. How do you suggest we do this process -wise? YUEN: Just have a general discussion and we could go point -by -point, or I'm not sure if the Commission members have individual items they want to talk about. Certainly, though, I would like the Commission to specifically deal with the additions I put in the Non-partisan election that are discussed in my letter of May 18 because there are a couple of things that have not specifically been voted on by the Commission. IRVINE: Chris, if we just vote on the version sent out by you on this date, is that all right? We got your discussion. YUEN: That would take care — just so the Commission did vote on that and approve that, then I'd be comfortable with that. IRVINE: I guess I'd like to move that we accept number 1, the non-partisan amendment as presented to us by Chris today. RAY: Do I have a second? SANTANGELO: Second. RAY: Discussion? HERKES: What is `insofar as applicable' mean? YUEN: That's because the State Laws on elections are written toward where you have partisan elections, Primary and General, and so that's the parts that are not applicable are the parts that deal with the nomination of candidates by parties and replacement of candidates by the parties, and the like. But we have to say that our County elections still do generally follow the State Law because we're having them — the whole code of how to do an election is in the State Law; where you have the polling places, when you have the proclamation of the election, when you have to file. All those things are spelled out in the State Law. We don't have a County Law that says all those things and the simplest thing is to just let's follow — That's what everybody does now, follow the State Law, except that we have a non-partisan election now. RAY: Roland. HIGASHI: Chris, are there different meanings for majority? Are there different words for majority? Majority, does it have different meanings? Simple majority? YUEN: No, not the term `majority' itself. I think that's clearly understood. The ambiguity comes in whether you count the blank or spoiled, and we went through that and made a decision that you don't count them in what is your total number of votes. So, I don't think that there's any ambiguity in saying that to win outright in the first election, you need a majority. That simply means if you have more than half plus a vote. If you have an even number of votes, you divide that in two and add one and you get the majority, and if you have an odd number of votes, you divide it in two and you round off to the higher number and that's the majority. HIGASHI: Okay, does Oahu says 50% plus one vote? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html 7/1/2011 minutes 05-31-00 Page 23 of 54 YUEN: No, I think they say a majority. I don't think they say 50% plus one. I think they say a majority. I could double check that, but I don't think that is anything that somebody could disagree with. RAY: Steve. BESS: Yes, I'm trying to simplify this for all the voters here. I'm wondering whether or not it's necessary to use `special elections', and I'm wondering whether or not we could provide for these elective officers to be elected on non-partisan primary and general elections and, just to keep it consistent and less confusing so that you'd have a primary County election and then the second would be a general County election. YUEN: The reason I use the term `first special election' and `second special election' is, again, a look back at the State Law that talks about elections. A Primary Election is defined as a nominating election. A Special Election is defined in State Law as any election which is not preceded by a Primary to nominate candidates. And then the City and County of Honolulu went to this terminology of `first special election' and `second special election' for, I think, the same reason. I didn't ask them why. BESS: I understand. And you don't think by putting in a primary County election would clarify that? YUEN: If we said it that way, the election would go forward and people would understand what to do I think the Election people would understand what to do and what we meant by doing that. Just looking at it from a technical legal point of view, I think that it does conflict with the way the State Law is set up. I know what you're saying and it bothers me too. It sounds wrong. The Special Election doesn't quite sound right, I think BESS: It's not a Special Election. YUEN: But again, the State Law defines a special election. Maybe the ordinary person thinks of a special election as an election that's not normally held, and this is an election that we're normally holding. BESS: Well, it's nice to know that all of our elections will be special. YUEN: Yes. I'm not happy with doing it this way myself but, I think, because that's the way that State Law says that's what a special election is, is why I call it a special election. Go ahead. IRVINE: Chris, the way we're doing it, we really wouldn't even have a primary and a general if, in the first special election, one person won 50% plus one vote. So, it would really be wrong to call it a primary. BESS: No, but what I'm trying to do is is that these elections take place at the time of a primary and general election when you're voting on the President of the United States. IRVINE: Correct. BESS: That kind of thing. IRVINE: But it would be your last chance to vote on these people and to call it a primary, unless you were going to go along with the amendment that you didn't go along with that I tried to make last meeting, it's just not a primary election. And having worked elections a lot, a special election is just the word they use. It's like Special Counsel that I thought was funny. It's just the term the State uses. RAY: Okay. John. SANTANGELO: Just to argue the point. RAY: We've got nothing but time. SANTANGELO: In our present elections where we have a primary and a general, you have people that win in the primary and then aren't even put on the ballot in the general. And it's called a primary. But I don't have a problem with that. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html 7/1/2011 minutes 05-31-00 Page 24 of 54 PRANKE: Jay Kimura ran unopposed. SANTANGELO: Yagong. He won in the primary. Wasn't put on the general. Wasn't even on the ballot. RAY: Okay, we beat this one to death? BESS: I'm sorry. Yes, we have beat it but just one other point. Just again focusing on the public and understanding, I don't know if it's safe for us to believe that everyone understands what a non-partisan election is but in the proposed language for the ballot, that it be elected in non-partisan elections, I'm just wondering whether it would be clearer to all people if we said that 'be elected on a non-partisan basis' and to go one step further and say `without regard to political party affiliation'. I don't know if that makes it any clearer for the public. So, I don't have a hang up about it but that's a thought. YUEN: Are you meaning — BESS: I'm looking at your proposed language for ballot. YUEN: For the ballot. BESS: Yes. You say 'be elected in non-partisan elections' and I'm just trying to put it so that there is no question about what we're talking about here for all the public. YUEN: Actually, I have no pride of authorship as far as the Ballot Questions and I want the Commission members to discuss, really, how — I put this out as a draft, as a basis for discussion. I can see saying this a little bit differently. You could say `non-partisan election with no party identification on the ballot'. I said that in the Digest to make that a little fuller. In stating the Ballot Question, there's a trade off between making it brief and making it complete, and I went toward brief in what I did rather than toward complete in the drafts. RAY: That's not much of an addition to add that language in the Question, to add that language in that section. BESS: That's what I'm saying. HERKES: I like that language. SANTANGELO: So that would be inserted at 'be elected without regard to political affiliation in non-partisan elections'. Is that what you're saying, something like that? Just insert that part right there? BESS: I said 'be elected on a non-partisan basis without regard to political party affiliation'. RAY: But to put that in the Question language, `shall all County officers', not in the — BESS: Yes, it's not in the substance; in the proposed language for — IRVINE: What if you just said `non-partisan' — RAY: Right, so to add it in the Question. YUEN: I understand that's what he wants to do. I don't think it's necessary to put it in the Charter to explain that because that' s— BESS: No, I don't want it in the Charter. YUEN: The Ballot Question is whatever people feel is the best language. RAY: We're not reviewing the Ballot Questions yet. Keep that in mind when we get to them. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html 7/1/2011 minutes 05-31-00 Page 25 of 54 BESS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were going - all right. HERKES: We're not? What are we doing? BESS: We're going amendment by amendment, but we're not necessarily going back to the proposed — RAY: We're going through the Charter Amendments first, then we'll go back through the Ballot Questions. YUEN: Maybe that's a better way to do it. What I wanted to make sure was that the Charter language that I had drafted for non-partisan, that that was reviewed and approved by the Commission. OT PERSON: Excuse me for breaking in, but do you know how many more meetings you're going to have approximately? RAY: No, I don't. OT PERSON: Looks like you guys are going to be here all night (indiscernible). HERKES: Unfortunately. No, I'm still here. OT PERSON: Okay, thanks a lot folks. RAY: So, we're discussing Charter Amendment number 1, non-partisan elections. SANTANGELO: And not the ballot thing, right? RAY: No, we're going to come back and go through the Ballot Questions and the Digest, unless you want to do it all. SANTANGELO: No, no, no. Keep going. RAY: It just seemed easier to me to go through it. HERKES: So, what do you want, a motion? YUEN: We had a motion. SANTANGELO: We're ready for the question. HERKES: Let's go. RAY: So, all in favor? RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye. Commissioner Martin abstained. RAY: Charter Amendment number 2, Managing Director. SANTANGELO: So moved. RAY: Do I have a second? HIGASHI: Second. SANTANGELO: I have one question real quick. Mr. Chairman? file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html 7/1/2011