Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_0124_MinutesOpen_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 2128/11 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date January 24, 2011 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B Start of Session: 4:05 pm End of Session: 5:03 pm Present Members: Sherman Shiraishi, Patrick Stack, Carol Suzawa, Jan TenBruggencate, Joel Guy, Ed Justus Also: Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn, Secretary Barbara Davis, Boards &Commissions Aide Paula Morikami Audience Members: Ken Taylor, Glenn Mickens, Carol Bain, Rich Hoeppner, Rob Abrew, John Hoff Excused Member: Mary Lou Barela Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION County Clerk Peter Nakamura administered the Oath of Office to Edgar Justus prior to the meeting being called to order. Call To Order Chair Shiraishi welcomed Ed Justus as a new member of the Commission and called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm with 6 members present Approval of Ms. Suzawa moved for approval of the agenda as Agenda circulated. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Approval of Open Session Minutes of December 13, 2010 Minutes Ms. Davis said that Mr. Mickens had pointed out a typo on page 2 which listed the next meeting date as January 23 instead of the correct date of January 24 Mr. TenBruggencate moved to approve the minutes of December 13 as circulated but with the stated correction. Motion was seconded and carried 6:0 Business CRC 2011-01 Discussion and decision-making on proposing a Charter amendment to correct non-substantive items related to grammar, spelling and formatting errors in the Charter Mr. TenBruggencate said the Commission needs to work on cleaning up non- substantial errors in the Charter over the next 1 %years in order to place this as one item on the ballot which could correct those errors. The review method could be to 1) appoint a sub-committee to the task or, 2) to review the Charter during regular scheduled meetings or, 3) to assign a separate section to different Commission member(s). It was noted part of this review would include gender-neutral language. Attorney Winn pointed out there is already a section in the Charter that addresses gender by noting that"he" refers to both genders. Mr. Stack suggested hiring a professional editor to edit the Charter and to bring it in step with current and acceptable terms and usage of gender. Mr. Justus asked if formatting would include reorganizing Charter Review Commission Open Session January 24, 2011 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the amendments into their applicable sections. Mr. Guy felt as a volunteer he would be leery to have the Commission tasked with crossing the "tees" and handling the housekeeping projects. It was further suggested that perhaps the County Council could assist with the corrections but Chair Shiraishi pointed out that the County Council by itself cannot enact amendments to the Charter, the Council can propose amendments to the Charter which have to be submitted to the voters for approval. Mr. TenBruggencate suggested holding a public hearing in connection with the next Commission meeting so the public can provide their thoughts on non-substantive issues in the Charter, whether grammatical, gender-related or anything else, and further suggested that the Commission ask Mr. Isobe and the Staff to determine if there is a budget to hire a professional to make the appropriate changes for a corrected Charter to be presented back to the public. Chair Shiraishi said the public is invited to testify at any meeting on any item on the agenda, this matter will be on the agenda for a number of meetings. Mr. Justus moved that the Commission explore the matter of how much can be budgeted for a professional editor. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the motion. Mr. Justus amended his motion to include a request that the Staff send out a press release or some sort of public information saying that the Charter Commission will be welcoming comments at the next CRC meeting on procedures to correct non- substantive items in the Charter. Mr. TenBruggencate amended his second. Carol Bain—supported correcting non-substantive changes to the Charter and volunteered to seek out a guide for gender-neutral wording and send it to the CRC Staff. She also felt Kaua'i had qualified people capable of making the corrections to the Charter. Glenn Mickens—asked who is responsible for the wording on a ballot measure. Although not an agenda item, Chair Shiraishi replied that Staff and the County Attorney consider public input before providing the wording to the Commission for their final approval. Ken Taylor—Section 24.03 A of the Charter says that unless a new Charter is submitted to voters each amendment to the Charter shall be voted on separately. The Commission should request a written opinion from the Attorney clarifying whether or not Charter Review Commission Open Session January 24, 2011 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION making all of these changes would require each individual change to be listed individually on the ballot versus lumped together. If this moves forward, a professional editor or legal erson should go over the Charter word-by-word. Motion carried 6:0 CRC 2011-02 Discussion and possible decision-making on changing the percent of registered voter signatures required on a petition to propose amendments to the Charter as provided for in Section 24.01 B, Kaua'i County Charter Section 24.01 B allows for Charter amendments to be proposed by a petition signed by not less than 5% of the voters registered in the last general election and Mr. TenBruggencate said his concern was that it takes fewer signatures to launch a Charter amendment than to launch an initiative and yet the Charter is a more substantive document in our society than a piece of legislation. Mr. TenBruggencate said he had not come to a conclusion as to whether the signature count for initiative and referendum should be dropped or whether the initiative signature count for Charter amendments should be increased or brought to the same level or if there is some other solution noting that it seemed inappropriate that it was easier in to change the Charter, the basic document under which we operate our government, than to place a piece of legislation on the ballot. Ms. Suzawa agreed that the 5% requirement for amendments was a very low amount and she supported what Mr. TenBruggencate was trying to bring forth but sometimes the text of a proposed amendment brought forward by petition contradicted another section of the Charter which created difficulty for this County to implement. Do the other methods of getting something on the ballot go through the same process that the Commission employs to ensure that the language is correct without changing the intent? Rich Hoeppner—The voters make the decision on whether a Charter amendment passes. To raise the percentage of registered voters required to get a petition on the ballot you might as well eliminate the public which is one of three ways to get an amendment on the ballot. Chair Shiraishi said part of the discussion would be whether to lower the percentage for referendum. Glenn Mickens—was in agreement with Mr. Hoeppner. Lowering the number of signatures needed from the public would make citizen participation in their government more attractive, Mr. Mickens would endorse reducing the amount of signatures required for the public to place an item on the ballot to 3% since the public has only placed 2 issues on the ballot in the past 30 years. Mr. Stack asked if the percentage was reduced to 1%, would this not create a lot of frivolous proposals. Mr. Mickens said he did not want frivolous thins brought before the Commission but thought obtaining Charter Review Commission Open Session January 24, 2011 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION signatures of even 3% of the registered voters was still a difficult job. Ken Taylor—pointed out that there is a very big difference between Initiative and Referendum and §24.01 on the agenda which changes the Charter by amendment. Public petitions have to be looked over by the Attorney's office and the Clerk of the Council's office so if there is a conflict within that document it should be picked up at that point and the changes necessary to correct the conflict before moving forward to gather the signatures. If the Commission wants to look at making changes they should look at dropping the 20% in §22.01 and consider dropping to 3% for§24.01 but he would not recommend gong there since it is very clear it has not been abused. It is not a discrepancy between §22.01 and §24.01, it was put there to keep the public from constantly requesting changes to ordinances and activities of the day-to-day operations. Rob Abrew—There has not been a problem or abuse with §24.01 so why even think about changing it. Chair Shiraishi explained that this agenda item may be confusing and that the agenda for the next meeting should refer to §24.01 and §22.01. Public testimony seems to be that we should not increase the percentage requirements for Charter amendments but look at possibly decreasing the voter requirements for Initiative and Referendum. Mr. Justus understood from the public testimony that it may not be necessary to lower the percentage for§22.01 with the main concern being that the percentage for§24.01 not be raised higher. John Hoff—voiced his opposition to raising the 5% level for§24.01 since it is hard enough to get people involved in politics and interested in what is going on in the islands. He would go along with the idea of dropping the percentage for Initiatives and Referendums. It would not be a frivolous action to make them all 5%. Mr. TenBruggencate parenthetically noted that (Kaua'i) is the only County in which it is easier to change the Charter than to propose an initiative. Mr. TenBruggencate moved to defer CRC 2011-02 to the February meeting and include a discussion of Section 22. Motion seconded. Motion carried 6:0 Mr. TenBruggencate clarified that it was not his intent to increase the percentage for Section 24 but rather to hear what the public has to say. Ms. Suzawa asked the County Attorney to provide a comparison showing what percentages the other Counties require. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 24, 2011 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION CRC 2011-03 Memorandum dated 1/14/2011 from Leonard Rapozo, Jr., Director of Parks and Recreation, rescinding the request for the Charter Review Commission to consider amending Article XIII, Section 13.03 and Article XXXI, Section 31.03 relating to the transfer of Building Maintenance from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Parks and Recreation Mr. TenBruggencate moved to accept the memorandum. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Next Meeting Monday, February 28, 2011 Chair Shiraishi asked the Commissioners to contact Ms. Davis or him directly with any items they wish laced on an agenda. Adjournment Mr. TenBruggencate moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:03 pm. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Secretary Sherman Shiraishi, Chair ( ) Approved as is. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.