Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/2011 Public Hearing Transcript re: BILL#2395PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 9, 2011 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order by Jay Furfaro, Chair, Committee of the Whole, on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, at 1:39 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: BILL NO. 2395 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kauai on January 12, 2011, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on January 27, 2011. The following communications were received for the record: 1. Horace/Phyllis Stoessel email, dated January 28, 2011 2. Horace/Phyllis Stoessel email, dated February 7, 2011 The hearing proceeded as follows: HORACE STOESSEL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Horace Stoessel. For the information of those watching these proceedings on television, in the critique of Bill 2395 I submitted 12 days ago, I suggested three changes in the bill: 1) to require that a public hearing be held in connection with each salary resolution, 2) to prohibit establishing a multi-year raises in a single salary resolution, and 3) to remove section 3-2.1(b) from the bill in recognition of the fact that it is not possible to legislate a workable and legally defensible system of uniform performance evaluations for the executive salary process. 1 I welcome any questions councilmembers have about my critique of the bill, but I first want to point out that the bill as amended by section b raises two questions specifically for the council. The first, given the wealth of knowledge and experience that councilmembers bring to the table, do you need someone else to tell you what procedure you must follow in evaluating the performance of the county clerk or what conditions you must satisfy before you can set the clerk's salary within the limits set by the salary commission. And second, is it wise for the council to surrender a part of its autonomy by submitting to a process of performance evaluation controlled by the mayor. Do you have any questions? Council Chair Furfaro: Members? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Thank you Mr. Stoessel. Did I say your last name correctly? Mr. Stoessel: Yes. Mr. Bynum: Because I listened to you and I realized I've been pronouncing it incorrectly for a number of years... Mr. Stoessel: Well, I gave up a long time ago. I'm not related to John Stoessel, but that's the name that's out in the public. But you're right. Mr. Bynum: Hopefully I'll get it right from now on. I always appreciate your testimony because it's very thoughtful, meticulous, and it challenges the way I think about things, which is a good thing. And so I do have one question about your testimony. You know, the salary commission, I think, did work towards what is a widespread sentiment, I believe, that individuals who make six figures should be routinely evaluated, and they shouldn't just get a walk on that, you know, just because they're the department heads. And so, you know, if I understand your... Your position has been that they don't really have that authority under the Charter. And so I think the amendment or the bill, we were going to put that in so we had that authority, because there's still an outstanding question of what the authority of the salary commission was. I know I was coming from the assumption that it's established by Charter. If they adopt a resolution, it has the weight of the Charter; it's the expectation. And if that's not the case, the council has the ability to make things legal... or have an expectation. So I thought that's what we were trying to do-is honor the salary commission's intent and make sure that it was a legal requirement. And so is your testimony that we shouldn't have that requirement anywhere, either from the council or in the Charter that every department should decide for themselves, the mayor should decide for themselves, whether their department heads get evaluated on a routine basis? Mr. Stoessel: Well, what I said is that I do not believe it's possible to legislate a workable and legal and defensible system of uniform 2 performance evaluation. I totally agree with the idea that people who appoint should hire people who are qualified, should supervise them and see that they do their jobs, and that they earn their pay. I think that assumption is implicit in the whole Charter, but the issue here as I see it is the one I just mentioned. I don't see how you can legislate such a system, and I offered six reasons in my critique for thinking that way. Mr. Bynum: Well thank you for answering the question, and thank you for your testimony. Mr. Stoessel: You're welcome. Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Real quick question. Mr. Stoessel, you're going to be here next week at the committee meeting, right? Mr. Stoessel• .Sorry? Mr. Rapozo: You're going to be at the committee meeting next week? Mr. Stoessel: Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Stoessel: Council Chair Furfaro Is that an invitation? Yes. Okay, I'll be there. Councilwoman Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, good afternoon. For your question number two at the bottom of your testimony, where you say, is it wise for the council to surrender a part of its autonomy by submitting a process of performance evaluation control by the mayor. I would argue that the council is not totally autonomous, that it actually is part of a county, and that it's part of a checks and balance system, so that rather... and so (I'm guessing and I'm asking) could not one see it not as a surrender but as part of the checks and balances of the administration on the council, just as the council checks the administration in many ways--can override a veto, has to approve collective bargaining-and makes for a more... And also on top of that, it makes for a more uniform personnel policy within the county, which is especially important with respect to salaries. Mr. Stoessel: Are you asking me a question? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. 3 Mr. Stoessel: What's the question? Ms. Yukimura: The question is, could one not rather than construe it as a surrender, construe it as an important check and balance that the council would have to follow certain uniform policies that apply across the county, especially with respect to department head salaries. Mr. Stoessel: I don't see how that would take away the issue of separation of powers and the council's autonomy with respect to this particular issue. And I suppose that's one of the questions the council will decide in terms of what you eventually do with this amendment. I could make a speech in support of that, but I'm not going to. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you very much. Council Chair Furfaro: Any more questions of Mr. Stoessel's testimony? I guess we'll see you back at the committee meeting? Mr. Stoessel: Yes. Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, very good. Thanks for your testimony today. Mr. Mickens? Is there anyone that would like to testify at this public hearing on this item? If not, I'm going to close this public hearing. Thank you. There being no further testimony on this matter, the public hearing adjourned at 1:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, PETER A. NA URA County Clerk /ao 4