Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_0328_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 4/25/11 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I March 28,2011 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 Start of Meeting: 4:01 pm I End of Meeting: 5:05 pm Present Chair Sherman Shiraishi, Vice-Chair Patrick Stack; Members: Ed Justus, Carol Suzawa, Jan TenBruggencate Also: Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis, Administrator John Isobe, Administrative Aide Paula Morikami Audience Members: Phyllis Stoessel Excused Member: Mary Lou Barela Absent Member: Joel Guy SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair Shiraishi called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm with a quorum of 5 Commissioners resent Approval of Mr. Justus moved to approve the agenda as Agenda circulated. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Approval of Open Session Minutes of February 28, 2011 Ms. Suzawa moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Business CRC 2011-01 Discussion and decision-making on proposing a Charter amendment to correct non-substantive items as they relate to grammar, spelling and formatting errors in the Charter (deferred from meeting on 2/28/11) (a) Review of and decision-making on proposed Press Release seeking public input on procedures to correct non-substantive items as they relate to grammar, spelling and formatting errors in the Charter Other than making appropriate date changes within the press release, the concurrence was that it was a good first step to get an idea of what the public thinks the process for correcting non-substantive items in the Charter should Charter Review Commission Open Session March 28, 2011 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION entail. Asked if there was a budget to hire an editor to assist with the changes, Mr. Isobe said not specifically for the purposes mentioned but there is a budget to support boards and commissions in general. The request would have to go out for procurement and depending on the costs, a determination would be made as to whether there are sufficient funds within the current budget or if a separate appropriation would need to be requested. Mr. TenBruggencate suggested the Commission compile a list of suggestions from the people to get a sense of how big the project might be and whether it is just to fix the grammatical and gender errors or if it goes beyond that. There was discussion as to whether it was necessary to include a deadline Mr. TenBruggencate made the motion to allow such as May 15 for submitting testimony in the press release or whether it Staff to make the appropriate date changes and should be left open-ended. to authorize the issuance of the press release. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried Phyllis Stoessel referred to the written testimony she submitted citing the 5:0 need for the Commission's review to include updating the language, integrating amendments, making the sections coherent and placing an official version of the Charter online. Chair Shiraishi noted that Ms. Stoessel had a lot of good suggestions but not all of them fall under the purview of the Charter Commission such as the online version of the Charter which is the responsibility of the Office of Boards and Commissions. (b) Communication dated 3/1/11 from the Charter Review Commission to the County Attorney's Office requesting legal guidance or an opinion on whether non-substantive changes can be made to the Charter without going Charter Review Commission Open Session March 28, 2011 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION through the amendment process and, if not, does each non-substantive change require a separate amendment or can all non-substantive changes be included as one amendment. (c) Confidential opinion dated 3/7/11 from Deputy County Attorney Mr. TenBruggencate moved to receive the Jennifer Winn offering legal guidance on whether non-substantive changes Deputy County Attorney's opinion with thanks can be made to the Charter without going through the amendment process from the Commission. Mr. Justus seconded the and whether each non-substantive change would require a separate motion. Motion carried 5:0 amendment or whether all non-substantive changes could be included as one amendment. Phyllis Stoessel—Made a request to the Commission to release the Attorney's opinion to the public since it dealt with a matter of law and would affect all citizens in the way Charter changes are presented. Deputy Attorney Winn stated that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and did not foresee any problems legally with releasing the opinion but that privilege belonged to the Commission. Asked what the process is for releasing opinions, Mr. Isobe said they are Mr. Justus moved that the Commission waive released upon request with a disclaimer inserted on the opinion itself stating the attorney-client privilege and make the the date of the meeting at which the Commission waived it's attorney-client Attorney's opinion public. Mr. TenBruggencate privilege so it is clear to everyone that the opinion is releasable. Mr. seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 TenBruggencate stated that it is not his intent to always vote to release the Attorney's advice to the Commission but this particular opinion clearly goes directly to an issue the Commission is working on. Chair Shiraishi stated that previously Staff had submitted a proposal which would defer non-substantive changes regarding gender to the County Council and Staff was asked to elaborate on the proposal. Charter Review Commission Open Session March 28, 2011 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Isobe said that the proposal would allow Council to propose charter amendments to correct non-substantive typographical or section changes by ordinance after two readings. Mr. Isobe pointed out that this Commission currently exists for a period of ten years. Thereafter, the Charter Review Commission reverts back to being established once every ten years. For this reason, the opportunities to make non-substantive changes or corrections to the Charter resulting from clerical and typographical errors would be limited to 10-year intervals. He explained that it is likely that inadvertent clerical errors will occur and as a result, it is prudent to allow the County to correct non-substantive errors in Charter corrections without requiring a vote by the electorate. As we move forward into the future, this authorization becomes even more necessary when the requirement that this Commission exist for ten years sunsets and reverts to only once every ten years. Chair Shiraishi said there are three ways to handle the gender changes. One is to send out the press release and invite members of the public to submit their suggestions; second would be to let the County Council propose changes relating to gender and non-substantive issues on a piecemeal basis; the third way would be to have the Commission do it. CRC 2011-02 Discussion and possible decision-making on changing the Mr. Justus moved to receive item CRC 2011-02 required voter percentages for either or both Section 24.01 B (Charter for the record. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the Amendments by petition signed by 5% of registered voters) and Section motion. Motion carried 5:0 22.03 C (Initiative & Referendum by 20% of registered voters) of the Kauai County Charter(deferred from meeting on 2-28-11) (a) Communication date 3/1/11 from the Charter Review Commission to the County Clerk's Office requesting clarification on the definition and use of Charter Review Commission Open Session March 28, 2011 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION terms "registered"versus "eligible"voters as provided for in the Charter. Mr. TenBruggencate pointed out that there appears to be division in the community on what the percentages should be. He felt that perhaps the Commission should hear more from the public. Mr. Stack mentioned that with the present language, it appears that first time voters are unable to vote. The Chair concurred and said that is why there needs to be some language change. CRC 2011-04 Discussion and possible decision-making on clarifying Section 22.03.0 to reword the section to read "each initiative or each referendum petition must be signed by registered voters comprising not less than twenty percent(20%) of the number of registered voters registered in the last preceding general election." There was discussion related to revising the requirements for submitting Initiative and Referendum petition by reducing the percentage of voters from 20%to 10% and revising the term "eligible"voters to "registered"voters. After discussing options and alternatives, the Commission decided to defer Mr. TenBruggencate moved to defer this agenda this item for further discussion at the neat meeting. item to the 4/25/11 meeting. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 CRC 2011-05 Discussion and possible decision-making on clarifying Section 24.0 1.13 by rewording the first sentence of Section 24.0 1.13 so that it would read: `By petition presented to the council, signed by registered voters comprising not less than five percent(5%) of the number of registered voters registered in the last general election, setting forth the proposed amendments." Charter Review Commission Open Session March 28, 2011 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Based on the discussions related to the previous agenda item CRC2011-04, the Commission discussed the possibility of clarifying the existing Charter language contained in Section 24.01 B regarding Charter amendment proposals submitted by citizen petition as follows: "By petition presented to the council, signed by registered voters comprising not less than five percent(5%) of the number of voters registered in the last general election, setting forth the proposed amendments." Mr. TenBruggencate moved to defer this agenda item, as amended,to the 4/25/11 meeting. The Commission decided to defer this item, as amended above, to the next Mr. Justus seconded the motion. meeting for further discussion in conjunction with item CRC2011-04. Motion carried 5:0 Written Written public testimony from Carl Imparato, dated 3/27/11 and from Phyllis Received for the Record. Testimonies Stoessel, dated 3/27/11; Memo dated 3/28/11 from Peter Nakamura, County Received Clerk, on CRC 2011-02 (a) Next Meeting Next meeting: Monday, April 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm in the Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B Adjournment I The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Staff Support Clerk Sherman Shiraishi, Chair O Approved as is. O Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.