Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_0225_AgendaPacket Jan TenBruggencate Members: Chair Mary Lou Barela Joel Guy James Nishida, Jr. Ed Justus Patrick Stack Vice Chair Carol Suzawa COUNTY OF KAUAI CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA Monday, February 25, 2013 4:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B 4444 Rice Street, Lu'e, HI 96766 CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Open Session Minutes of January 28, 2013 BUSINESS CRC 2013 -03 Proposed amendment creating a new Section 24.04, Kauai County Charter, relating to non-substantive corrections and revisions as they relate to grammar, spelling and formatting errors in the Charter and whether to consider budgeting for an outside editor. (On-going) a. Discussion with legal analysts Shiramizu Nakamura Loo on procedures for identifying and proposing non-substantive corrections and revisions to the Charter. CRC 2013-07 Proposed amendment from Commissioner Justus revising Article III, County Council, Section 3 .02 Composition, Section 3 .03 Terms, and Section 3 .04 Qualifications relating to Partial Districting (deferred from 11/26/12) c. Special Committee proposed amendment for County Council Partial Districting (Four District/Three At-Large) d. Special Committee proposed amendment for County Council Districting — Seven Districts, At-Large CRC 2013-06 Review and Approval of 2013 Meeting Schedule (Deferred 1 /28/13) ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Meeting: Monday, March 25, 2013 at 4:00 pm in the Mo 'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B ADJOURNMENT An Equal Opportunity Employer EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawai `i Revised Statutes §92-7(a), the Commission may, when deemed necessary, hold an executive session on any agenda item without written public notice if the executive session was not anticipated in advance. Any such executive session shall be held pursuant to HRS §92-4 and shall be limited to those items described in HRS §92-5(a). Discussions held in Executive Session are closed to the public. Cc: Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn PUBLIC COMMENTS and TESTIMONY Persons wishing to offer comments are encouraged to submit written testimony at least 24-hours prior to the meeting indicating: 1 . Your name and if applicable, your position/title and organization you are representing; 2. The agenda item that you are providing comments on; and 3 . Whether you will be testifying in person or submitting written comments only; and 4. If you are unable to submit your testimony at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, please provide 10 copies of your written testimony at the meeting clearly indicating the name of the testifier; and 5 . If testimony is based on a proposed Charter amendment, list the applicable Charter provision. While every effort will be made to copy, organize, and collate all testimony received, materials received on the day of the meeting or improperly identified may be distributed to the members after the meeting is concluded. The Charter Commission rules limit the length of time allocated to persons wishing to present verbal testimony to five (5) minutes. A speaker' s time may be limited to three (3) minutes if, in the discretion of the chairperson or presiding member, such limitation is necessary to accommodate all persons desiring to address the Commission at the meeting. Send written testimony to : Charter Review Commission Attn: Barbara Davis Office of Boards and Commissions 4444 Rice Street, Suite 150 LThu` e, HI 96766 E-mail:bdavis@kauai. gov Phone: (808) 241 -4919 Fax: (808) 241 -5127 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE If you need an alternate format or an auxiliary aid to participate, please contact the Boards and commissions Support Clerk at (808) 241 -4919 at least five (5) working days prior to the meeting. Charter Review Commission — February 25, 2013 2 I P a g e • COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Committee: I CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I January 28, 2013 Location Mo 'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B Start of Meeting: 4:03 p.m. I End of Meeting: 5 :25 p.m. Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice-Chair Ed Justus. Members : Joel Guy; James Nishida; Patrick Stack; Carol Suzawa Also : Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Paula Morikami; Administrative Aide Teresa Tamura. Member of the Public Linda Estes. Excused Member: Mary Lou Barela Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Prior to the start of the meeting, County Clerk Ricky Watanabe gave the Oath of Office to Commission members Jan TenBruggencate and Joel Guy. Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm with 6 Commissioners present. Ms. Suzawa moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Approval of Open Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 Ms. Suzawa moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6: 0 Communications CRC 2013 -01 Communication dated 12/4/12 from Ricky Watanabe, County Clerk, to the Charter Review Commission regarding Certificate Of All Results, 2012 Charter Amendments, County of Kauai Mr. Justus moved to accept the communication. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 6: 0 CRC 2013-02 Communication dated 12/4/12 from Ricky Watanabe, County Clerk, to Scott Nago, Chief Election Officer, regarding Certificate Of Results. 2012 Charter Amendments, County of Kauai Mr. Justus moved to accept the communication. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 :0 Business CRC 2013-03 Proposed amendment creating a new Section 24.04, Kauai County Charter, relating to non-substantive corrections and revisions as they relate to grammar, spelling and formatting errors in the Charter and whether to consider budgeting for an outside editor Linda Estes — Ms. Estes stated she went through the Charter and changed all of the personal pronouns to reflect both men and women. The process only took 3 hours but Ms. Estes said on page 51 (Section 23 . 17) the Charter says When any personal pronoun appears in this charter, it shall be construed to mean either sex. Ms. Estes said all that needs to be done is have whoever put the Charter on the website go back through and change all the pronouns as this is enabling legislation so it should not be a big deal. Chair TenBruggencate said it is not quite that easy. That is legislation that says "he" does not have to be man but it does not say you can change the language of the Charter, which is a different issue. Attorney Winn agreed with Chair TenBruggencate. Mr. Stack referred to previous complaints from the public for the Commission' s failure to degenderize the Charter. Mr. Stack agrees the language should be changed but the Commission cannot make the changes by itself. It is a decision for the public to give the Commission the authority to make those changes, even though they are logical and should be rightfully changed, the Commission does not have that power. The Commission has to provide for it in a ballot question at the next election. Linda Estes — Ms. Estes stated she disagrees with the County Attorney. The Commission has the enabling legislation; what if it is put on the agenda (sic) and it does not pass. (Ms. Estes did correct the statement to Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION reflect the ballot.) Mr. Justus said that line in the Charter does not create a mechanism that allows the Commission the ability to make those changes. The Charter states `it shall be construed to mean' which means that whoever is reading the Charter, it is construed to mean either sex. There is no legal wording authorizing the power to either the County Attorney or the Charter Commission to alter this document. Ms. Estes argued that it got into the Charter somehow and asked how it got in there. Mr. Justus said when that statement was placed in the Charter the framers of the Charter did not think to include a mechanism with which to make those changes. Ms. Estes said she used "he/she", "his/her" and for chairman she used "chair". Mr. Nishida agreed this was something that should be done but did not see a real importance of having it done so should the voters vote it down it is not such a big deal. Mr. Nishida said in a class he is taking now the young people do not see gender specific but rather see the word "he" as "he/she". Mr. Nishida said he was not arguing to not make the changes but it also is not that big a deal. Mr. Guy told Ms. Estes that he did appreciate her coming in but he is hesitant with piece-mealing. There are bigger discrepancies than just he/she and he would lean toward an editor-type system to go through and clarify all of the Charter. Ms. Estes further explained that she put `councilmember' where it said ` councilman' . Ms. Estes said the editing is done and it has all been corrected if the Commission would like to turn the document over to the Attorneys. Mr. Justus also thanked Ms. Estes for her efforts. Chair TenBruggencate said the Commission will accept Ms. Estes document and it will continue to play a role in the development of a gender-neutral document that also will contain non-substantive amendments to the Charter that are required before it goes to the public. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair TenBruggencate thanked Ms. Estes for her testimony and hard-work. Ms. Morikami said the legal analysts, Shiramizu Nakamura Loo, who were hired to assist with the ballot language on last year' s Charter amendments are still on board and since there are no Charter amendments for this fiscal year perhaps the Charter Review Commission can utilize their services. These legal analysts could look at the language on the non-substantive changes and present those possible changes to the Commission. Mr. Guy said there are two issues. One is making the changes but the other is how do you pitch that to the voter so it is not 87 changes. Chair TenBruggencate said a whole series of non-substantive changes can be presented as a single document. Attorney Winn stated that there can be one ballot question because it is all interrelated but the actual document that shows the underlining (Ramseyer version) would still have to be part of the process. Ms. Morikami said she believed that is what the Big Island did when they made those changes to their Charter. Ms. Suzawa said that only took care of corrections up to current but asked how future corrections would be handled. Ms. Morikami said that was correct but it was the hope that the future amendments will be correct. Ms. Suzawa said she would prefer having a mechanism that is on-going in the Charter. Ms. Morikami said that is something this Commission can look at and while all the changes made to the Charter for the Big Island were done through one ballot question, she did not know if there was a mechanism to make future changes. Ms. Suzawa recalled the ballot question on the proposed amendment was copied from the Big Island. Ms. Davis noted that the Big Island' s ballot question, which was taken off their website, is listed at the bottom of the proposed amendment. There was agreement that using the word non-substantive as part of the language may be putting the public off, but by specifying grammatical, spelling and formatting this might provide a better chance of moving this proposal forward. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Nishida referred to using "he/she" and said he would like the legal analysts to address transgender as well. Ms. Morikami asked if the Commission wants the Office of Boards and Commissions to move forward with the legal consultant, give them guidelines on the non-substantive changes, and ask them to make a presentation to the Commission. It is understood from communications received from the County Attorney' s Office and the County Clerk' s Office that they do not have the manpower to do this task. Mr. Stack stated he was happy and surprised to hear of the legal consultants being engaged and asked when were they hired and at what cost. Ms. Morikami said they were hired April of this past year and it is based on the amount of time they spent on the issues related to the Charter Review Commission. They were also hired to look at revising the Rules and Procedures of various Boards and Commissions. They were not hired solely for the Charter Review Commission but their contract does include reviewing Charter amendments. Mr. Stack said this has been talked about many times in the past and there were suggestions from other Commissioners about hiring a law student, hiring a legal firm, or hiring a grammatical instructor from a university. Apparently the Office of Boards and Commissions has decided that the Commission is going to engage this particular party or parties and he does not remember discussing this with any of the other Commissioners. What is the County paying for this service? Ms. Morikami said the legal analysts' function is in assisting the Boards and Commissions Office and their main role, when they were hired, was to review the Charter amendments to make sure they were legal and they were understood. Mr. Stack said he has no problem with the legality but our political system calls upon citizen volunteers to utilize their best efforts. He thought the Boards and Commissions Office would Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION recognize that this Commission, in particular, would be utilizing them and should have had a hand in the selection process. Ms. Morikami said she disagreed with that statement because the analysts are also reviewing Rules and Regulations of all 16 of the Boards and Commissions. It was the decision of the Office of Boards and Commissions after going through the competitive bid process for professional services. Ms. Morikami said this was being offered as an option but the Commission does not have to use the services of the legal analysts. Chair TenBruggencate said he understands that the Boards and Commissions Office went through a process and hired a law firm to review issues that come up with all the Boards and Commissions and there is sufficient budget left to commit some of those lawyers' time to the needs of this Commission. Chair TenBruggencate understands Mr. Stack' s concern but thinks the Office is doing the Commission a favor. Mr. Stack said he did agree and did not want his comments to reflect any doubt about Boards and Commissions' wonderful selection process but as citizen volunteers the Commissioners may have given some insight into the process. That being said, Mr. Stack said he trusts Ms. Morikami' s judgment and he trusts the judgment of the support staff for all of the Boards and Commissions and is happy with the things the Office does. The one issue is of authority and disclosure. Ms. Morikami said whatever recommendations are made, this Commission has the final say as the analysts will go through the Charter and make the non-substantive changes and the Commission can say yes or no. This would be a tool to help the Commission to deliberate and decide whether or not to make those changes. It is not subjective; it is going through the Charter and objectively making the corrections. Mr. Justus asked if part of the non-substantive changes is taking the current Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Charter and codifying it legally. Attorney Winn said that is a function of the County Clerk' s Office and would not have anything to do with Boards and Commissions. Mr. Nishida asked why we would not use our County Attorney. Ms. Morikami said this Commission asked the County Clerk and the County Attorney' s Office last year to see if they would be willing to make the changes and they both declined because of the work load involved. Mr. Stack recalled there was a third party who also declined to help out and that was the County Council. Ms. Morikami said the Clerk' s Office is part of the County Council. Mr. Guy asked what this body of attorneys would be doing if they do not do this work. Ms. Morikami said they would start reviewing the Rules and Regulations for each Board and Commission to provide a more uniform approach rather than each Board and Commission having totally different rules. Ms. Morikami said the analysts are contracted as needed and get paid only when they are asked to do work for the Office. Chair TenBruggencate asked for a motion to refer this issue to the Boards and Commissions Office along with Linda Estes' exemplary work and to ask the legal analysts/attorneys to come back to the Commission' s meeting next month and report on the kinds of changes they propose and any policy issues this Commission needs to address before any changes are made with respect to the kinds of amendments they will be looking at. Mr. Justus said this is a great idea to have a body of lawyers go through the Charter and present something that is up to date. Equally important is a subsection to provide a mechanism that allows the County Attorney or County Clerk or both parties to make those changes in the future. This could be done two-prong; one would present changes as up to date, with a Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION second question that creates a mechanism for future changes. Mr. Nishida said he thought the ballot question addressed that question unless proposing an ordinance means only one ordinance and subsequent changes could not be made. Mr. Justus thought it was giving the ability to make those changes but the Council would be the body to check to make sure they are non-substantive changes. Chair TenBruggencate said they were talking about three different things. One proposal is to get the attorneys to make the changes that the Commission wants in the Charter and send to the voters, and may inappropriately be called non-substantive changes. In the alternative, the Big Island suggested letting the County Council do it. What Mr. Justus is talking about is putting something in the Charter that lets County Councils make future non-substantive changes that would not need to go to the voters; that is a substantive change. Mr. Guy thought it sounded like two different paths to the same ending. Chair TenBruggencate said Mr. Justus was saying that 10 years from now a County Council could say they want to make non-substantive changes to the Charter and they could with 5 votes. Mr. Guy said that same process would allow them to do it today and you would not have to go to the people; you just ask the people to allow this different process in changing non-substantive grammatical changes to the Charter. Once the people vote for that, they don't need to vote for the changes, only the way to get there. Once you create a way to get there, you give it to the Council and tell them the Attorneys have looked at the changes and ask for 5 votes to pass it. The Commission can set up a system that will allow it to be done up through current and even ten years from now. Mr. Justus understood this as the Commission can attack all the grammatical errors as one question. Mr. Guy said they just need to ask the people to let the Commission do it another way of making grammatical changes. If the process gets changed you can take the public out of this Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION process. Mr. Justus said what is important is whatever is proposed; the Commission should propose both because one is a mechanism that takes away the public' s power and the other just presents the changes that need to be made. Ballot question one: This is what needs to be corrected. Ballot question two : Do you want a mechanism that removes your power to approve other future non-substantive changes. The best thing for the public is for them to have the choice of whether they want to approve non- substantive changes in the future. The other question is of authority; do we want the authority in the public' s hands or in the Council ' s hands? That is why it is important to look at it from two angles. Mr. Guy asked what if the public does not approve it; the Charter needs to be cleaned up. Mr. Justus said that is why it should be presented as two separate questions. One is all the things that have to be corrected and the other is about the power to change which is an entirely separate question. Chair TenBruggencate suggested that if a motion is forthcoming it should be bifurcated now. Mr. Justus moved that the Office of Boards and Commissions Office refer this proposed amendment, to include the work from Linda Estes, to the legal analysts and request they provide to the Commission a specific proposal of the changes to be made. Mr. Nishida seconded Ms. Suzawa asked if the Commission has to go through the Office of the motion. Boards and Commissions or can they go directly to the legal analysts. Chair TenBruggencate said the Commission did not hire the attorneys; the Office of Boards and Commissions is their boss. Ms. Morikami said rather than the legal analysts telling the Commission what they are going to do, it would be more appropriate that they get input on what it is the Commission wants them to do. The Commission needs to Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION guide the attorneys on what needs to be done. Chair TenBruggencate said the motion is to get the attorneys in front of the Commission to talk about what is expected. Once the Commission has the proposed changes, it can be decided if the issue should go out to public meetings, just be placed on the ballot, or tossed out. Mr. Guy said the Commission needs to get clear on what is wanted and then find the way to get there. Mr. Guy said he would have formed the motion to say can the Commission direct the legal analysts to correct typographical, grammatical and other minor errors to the Charter. Mr. Stack said the most elemental task of the Commission is to make desirable and necessary changes but any of those changes must be approved by the public. Mr. Stack said to engage/hire a law firm to make the changes is creating a mechanism before the public has approved that we go in that direction. It is scary to act without the public' s endorsement and think we know more than the public and then after we clean it up the way we like it, we force it on the public through a ballot question. Mr. Justus said he did not see it that way at all. The Commission is using the option of attorneys who happen to be there to have them do the legal footwork to make the corrections and give a draft of the changes for the Commission' s review. The Commission has to have something to present to the public. Ms. Suzawa recalled a woman addressing the Commission about the changes that should be made and how careful we need to be in selecting the body to work on these changes. This is a great opportunity for this County to be able to afford this opportunity of using the type of people that are being involved with the changes because they understand our Charter. There was caution in that woman' s testimony that if it is given to someone who does not know anything about this County but is just looking for grammatical changes and spelling, sometimes you run into problems. But if you give it to a body that understands this County' s issues, that would be a great opportunity. Mr. Justus said he sees it as the analysts providing a rough draft and it is up to the Commission to look at it and make any changes that are important or take out things that are fishy. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Suzawa does not think it is about taking out things; it is a matter of commas and correct spelling but not taking out groups of words. Mr. Justus said what he was referring to as fishy is where there is a comma in a place that might change the meaning. Mr. Guy agrees with using this resource while it is available but would like to see more direction rather than the attorneys telling us what they think we should do. Chair TenBruggencate said he hopes the Commission can give them that direction at the next meeting. Mr. Guy and Mr. Justus said they would hope to give that direction today but Chair TenBruggencate commented that the attorneys were not there. Motion carried 6 :0 Chair TenBruggencate said the second half of the discussion deals with the issue of whether in the future the County Council makes these kinds of changes to the Charter. Mr. Justus said in rereading the Findings and Purposes of this proposed amendment, it allows the County Attorney or County Clerk to propose corrections; it does not say it allows the County Council to do that and asked if the Council already has that power. Attorney Winn said the Council does not have that power. As it is written, someone needs to take the changes to Council and they vote on those changes. Mr. Nishida said there is no limitation as to who can bring it; it is just a procedure with which you can make these changes to the Council, so the best one to do that would be the Charter Review Commission. The Council would hold a series of public hearings on those changes. Mr. Justus asked if the way the proposed amendment was written did it mean only the County Attorney or County Clerk had the ability to propose non- substantive changes to the Council. Attorney Winn said officially. Mr. Justus asked if that meant the Council could not propose non-substantive changes for them to vote to approve. Chair TenBruggencate said this has been taken from the language the Big Island used. The Chair said there is no language on the floor if someone wanted to propose such language. Mr. Justus wanted to know if it was possible or even wise to include the Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION County Council having the power to propose non-substantive changes. Attorney Winn said it could be a positive, but sometimes quite a negative if the Council has the power to change this one here and that one there rather than saying either yes or no. It was agreed that the process could take a longer time and some people in the public might not want Council to have that ability. Mr. Nishida asked where this would fall within the Charter. Mr. Justus said it is proposed as a new section 24.04. Mr. Justus said he would also like to hear from the Commission on making the ordinance be approved by 7 (Council) votes instead of 5. If it is truly non-substantive there should not be any dissenting votes. Mr. Nishida said he would vote against it but it is a question for the people to decide. Mr. Guy moved to defer discussion of the Council' s powers to the March agenda. Mr. Mr. Nishida made a request regarding a new ballot question but the sound Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried was inaudible. 6:0 CRC 2013-04 Proposed amendment revising Section 24.03 , Kaua'i County Charter, relating to establishing a permanent Charter Review Commission Mr. Guy moved to defer this amendment to November 2014. Mr. Justus seconded the Ms. Suzawa reminded the Commission this item would need to be on the motion 2014 ballot otherwise it would not be until 2016. Mr. Justus and Mr. Guy agreed this could be deferred until 2015 to be placed on the 2016 ballot. Mr. Justus moved to amend the motion to defer this item until 2015. (No second) Mr. Nishida said he would vote against the motion because if the item is being deferred that far out it should just be tabled. Mr. Stack asked where the logic in disbanding the Charter Review Commission is. Mr. Guy said the pressure is not there on this proposal and they should deal with other amendments for the 2014 ballot. Mr. Nishida voiced his point of view on why a Commission would be seated every 10 years to address the larger issues in the Charter versus putting smaller items on the ballot every two years. Mr. Nishida said he would like to know what it costs the County for the current sitting Commission. Motion failed: 2 (ayes: Guy, Justus):4 (nays: Charter Review Commission Open Session • January 28, 2013 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Nishida, Stack, Suzawa, TenBruggencate) Mr. Nishida moved to table the amendment. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 :2 (nays: Guy, Justus) CRC 2013-05 Proposed amendment to Kaua'i County Charter §8 .03 regarding the Qualifications for the County Attorney as provided for in Rule 4(b) of the Rules of the Kaua'i County Charter Review Mr. Justus said this proposal would provide more qualified people to choose from for a County Attorney by requiring a person to have practiced law in the State of Hawai'i for at least 5 years as opposed to 3 years. Mr. Nishida asked Attorney Winn what is required to get a license to practice law. Attorney Winn said one has to take a test on the various sections of the law, a test on the Rules of Professional Ethics and one needs to be approved by the Bar. Mr. Nishida said this strikes him as a "locals" only qualification and asked how important is the experience of practicing law in the State of Hawaii for the County Attorney' s job? This might be cutting out some good candidates. Attorney Winn said practicing Federal law is the same everywhere but every State has different laws and they could be quite different because the procedures of the courts could be quite different. How long it takes someone to get up to speed may be a matter of experience. Mr. Justus suggested they keep in mind this is only raising the requirement for the County Attorney, not for the junior officers. Mr. Nishida said you could have someone raised here, returns every year to see parents and is very qualified but does not have a license here. Attorney Winn said you cannot practice law in the State of Hawai'i without a license. Ms. Suzawa said a mayor is required to have 3 years, the county council is Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION required to have 2 years and to require 3 years for a county attorney seems fair and sufficient. It is hard to think that when you raise the bar, our Charter might exclude someone from being hired and would like to see the requirements remain at the same level as for other officers and keep it open so more people will qualify. Mr. Guy said he would be more concerned with the years of practicing in a relevant field such as if you had ten years in California in a municipal that is similar to Kaua'i rather than a divorce attorney for 5 years on O ` ahu. Mr. Guy said he could understand the qualifications of an attorney increasing but the fact they have to be here for more years can eliminate some possible candidates that might be great people. Mr. Justus asked about removing the line that restricts practice to the State of Hawaii so it reads engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years. Mr. Stack noted that we live in a unique place and as Attorney Winn pointed out the Hawai'i Revised Statutes are much different than other states. He personally would like to see someone with a lot of experience. Mr. Stack would like to see this amendment be at least 7 or 10 years, not less. The pool of talent is not really the question because it is an appointed position. The real question is what is the experience, the ability and the foresight of this person? Three years is too little time. Mr. Stack would vote for 5 years as is but personally would like to have 7 or 10 years of experience. Chair TenBruggencate was asked to share his thoughts and he said this was a problem looking for a solution. His preference would be to let a mayor make that decision. We have not had the problem in the County of Kaua'i where we had an attorney with as few as 5 years practicing law in the State of Hawai 'i in that job, so we do not know if this is a problem. Mr. Stack referred to the medical profession in contrast which requires a Charter Review Commission Open Session January 28, 2013 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION lot more than 3 years of experience in any state. You cannot underestimate or under appreciate experience and the more the better. Mr. Justus moved to accept this amendment. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Roll call to accept the amendment failed 2 ayes:4 nays (nay- Guy; aye-Justus; nay-Nishida; aye-Stack; nay- Suzawa; nay-TenBruggencate) CRC 2013-06 Review and Approval of 2013 Meeting Schedule Mr. Justus suggested removing the December 23 date. Chair TenBruggencate requested changing the date to the week prior in case a meeting is needed in December A revised meeting schedule will be placed on the February agenda for approval. Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, February 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. Adjournment Mr. Justus moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 :25 p.m. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 :0 Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Jan TenBruggencate, Chair ( ) Approved as is. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. Proposing A New Section 24.04 Relating to Non-substantive Corrections and Revisions. Findings and Purpose. The Commission finds that the County needs the ability to correct typographical and grammatical errors and make non-substantive format changes to the Charter resulting from clerical mistakes or newly adopted Charter amendments. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the County Attorney/County Clerk to propose corrections to errors in spelling, grammar, gender neutral language and other format changes as well as insert omitted words, section references, Hawaiian language diacritical marks and make other non-substantive revisions to the Charter. The adoption of all non-substantive corrections or revisions proposed by the County Attorney/County Clerk shall be by ordinance approved by a vote of five (5) or more members of the County Council and only upon the conclusion of a duly noticed public hearing. Charter Amendment. Article XXIV of the Kauai County Charter shall be amended by adding a new Section 24.04 to read as follows: "ARTICLE XXIV CHARTER AMENDMENT Section 24.04. Non-substantive corrections and revisions. A. The county attorney may propose non-substantive corrections and revisions to the charter by ordinance. B. In making non-substantive corrections and revisions the county attorney may: 1. Number and renumber articles, sections, and part of sections; 2 . Rearrange sections; 3 . Change reference numbers to be consistent with renumbered articles, sections, and part of sections under either federal, state, or county law; 4. Substitute the proper article or section number for the terms "the preceding Revised 5/23/11 (New Sec. 20.04 - Non-substantive Charter Corrections) 7 CRC 2013-03 section", "this article", and like termsi 5 . Delete figures where they are merely a repetition of written words; 6. Change capitalization for purposes of uniformity; 7. Correct clerical, typographical, or grammatical errors and insert omitted words or Hawaiian language diacritical marks; 8. Change any male or female gender terms to a term which is neutral in gender when it is clear that the provision is not applicable only to members of one sex and without altering the sense, meaning, or effect of any charter provision; 9. Delete any provision pre-empted or superseded by either federal or state law or any charter amendment; and 10. Incorporate other non-substantive changes as shall be necessary to provide a uniform and consistent language style throughout the charter. In making such revisions, the county attorney shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any article or section . C. Prior to adoption of the ordinance, the council shall conduct a public hearing on all proposed non-substantive corrections or revisions under consideration . A notice of the public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing. The public hearing shall be held not earlier than seven (7) days prior to the final reading of the ordinance. D. The ordinance shall be adopted by a vote of five (5) or more members of the County Council ." Note: New charter material is underscored . Ballot Question. Shall the County Attorney/County Clerk be allowed to propose an ordinance to correct typographical, grammatical and other minor errors to the Charter that must be approved by a vote of five ( 5 ) or more members of the County Council ? Big Island: RELATING TO GRAMMAR, SPELLING, AND FORMATTING OF THE CHARTER: Shall the charter of the County of Kaua'i be amended by correcting various grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors throughout the charter? Revised 5/23/11 (New Sec. 20.04 - Non-substantive Charter Corrections) CRC 2013-03 Proposal from the Charter Subcommittee on Council Districting: The subcommittee hereby suggests to the Commission the following four options as methods to answer the reoccurring need of better responsiveness from the Council : 1) Partial Districting of the Council (proposal by Mr. Justus) — The Council would consist of seven (7) members, three (3) elected at-large and four (4) elected by district. Voters could vote for all three at-large seats, and only one seat for the district that they reside in . A district apportionment committee would be created after the passing of the amendment to define the boundaries of the districts and a reapportionment committee would be created every ten years thereafter, after each census. 2) At-Large Districting of the Council (proposal by Jonathan Jay) — The Council would consist of seven (7) members, each member residing in only one (1) of the seven (7) districts across Kauai County. Voters could vote for all seven at-large district seats, regardless of where they resided . A district apportionment committee would be created after the passing of the amendment to define the boundaries of the districts and a reapportionment committee would be created every ten years thereafter, after each census. 3) Neighborhood Boards (proposal from subcommittee) - Each town would have a group of citizens, either elected or appointed, that would form a board or committee which would meet regularly to discuss and address the needs of their community. This could either be an entity below the County in governance, or could be an entity that reports its findings to the County, perhaps either specifically to the Council or Mayor or both, with possibly the requirement that either (or both ) would be required to act in addressing the issues the Board brings up . There is question as to what power the County has to create such an entity, and furthermore what scope of powers would such a Board have. 4) Council Regional Committee (proposal from subcommittee) — The Council would be required by the charter to have a "Regional Committee", whereupon each of the seven council members would either volunteer or be assigned to be the representative for one 'of the seven "regions" of the island. Each council member would be required to go out to their assigned region, perhaps once a month or every two months, and hold a meeting where CRC 2013 -07 community members could voice their concerns and ideas. Each council member would then report back to the regional committee what the community's input was and take action to address these needs. At each community meeting, each council member would also report back to the community what actions were taken by the regional committee to address their issue. Additionally, each council person would be the point-person to whom citizens of each region would address their concerns to, be it by phone, email, mail, or otherwise, between the regularly scheduled meetings. [Drafter's Suggestion: this amendment could occur in Section 3. 07, as "Sub-section G".] (It was discussed also that it could be possible to combine this proposal with the Neighborhood Board option.) CRC 2013 -07 t (14, County Cou cli'- Partial Districting IFour District/Three At-Large) 1. "Section 3.02. Composition. There shall be a council of seven members [elected at-large]. Three members shall be elected at-large by all registare • voters In the county Each of the other four members shall reside in and shall be elected fry m a se t ante co n II district by registered vot : rs residin in that separate council district., Section 3.03. Terms. The terms of office of [coundlmembers] council members shall be for two years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day in December following their election. No person shall be elected to the office for more than four consecutive two year terms. Section 3.04. Qualifications. A. To be eligible for the council, a person must be a citizen of the United States and must have been a duly qualified [elector] registered voter of the county for at least two years immediately preceding his or her filing candidacy oaoers for election [or appointment]. inr addition. those sand dates • shy - • undi ho u ► • to re • esent o le of h fa r counci[ districts must state whidi district the in �1 d to re • resent and that they have been q re • •st _ ed voter of that d strict for . h : or • 1 . : n etv days Should a coundl member move from, or be removed from, an of the seven council oositio l sfrom wi ch that person was elected. any re • lac „ nt ao ' ! ntee must m -. et all re • uirements of a candidate for that on B. Any [councilman] council member who removes his or her residence from the county or district from which elected, or is convicted of a felony, shall immediately forfeit his or her office. • Section 3.19., District Election and Reappointment., A. The first election by separate council districts shall be in the primary election of 2016. L. The year 2021 and every tenth year thereaftershall be district reapportionment Years. Cl. An initial council district apportionment commission shall be constituted on or before the first day of April 2015. A coundl district reapportionment commission shall be constituted on or before the firstdav of lulu ••of each district reapportionment year or whenever district ream • rtionment is required by court order. The commission shall consist of seven CRC 2013 - 07 c. C members. The members of he commission shall be ap • ointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council., The initial council d strict apportio mentcomm ssion hall be responsible for designating the geographic b • and _ ries of the council districts provide for above. The council district reapportionment commisslo s all be responsible for the reapportionment and redistricting of those districts., The c • mission shall elect a chair from among ittmembers. Any vacancy in the commission_ h I , e the s _ me manner -sfo in • ri _ a , , of ' melts The commission s , all act blithe maority vote of its membership and shall establish its own procedur - s. N • ember • f t con . t • , ha •e a lath a to becon e a ca • (date for election or a ! • ointm _ • the coundl in di i ial a ecdon held under any . oportionment or reapportionment plan adopted by the commissiont The commissi • n shall be furni her) all necessary tec , ical _nd secretarial services The mayor and the council shall aourop at funds to - nable ti e co it missi • n t • cam out its duties. D. in effecting the initial appo ionm , Ind each subsequent rea • • ortionment. the commission shal be guided and comp v wt , all anal able Federal and State laws. & On or before February [of the year following a • °ointment. tie commission shall file with the county clerk an a • nortionment or rea •portionm - nt • Ian. which shall become effective u°on its filing. F. Any registered voter may petition the proper c• urt to compel; by mandamus or otherwise, the a • • ro riate person orpersons to p ;dorm their dutvor too • nett any error made in the district act • ortionment or re 000rtionment p an or the court may ake s di other action to effectuate the Purposes of this section as it may deem approuriat . Anv3 ci petition must be filed within forty-five calendar days after the filing of the plan. Cam,. The commission's tenure shall end upon the filing of its plan‘" (Deleted material is bracketed; new material is underlined) • 41, (4.11, • 2. Ballot Question — Effective 2016, shall four of the seven council members be elected by districts (North, East, South/Central, West) and three of the seven council members be elected at-large, with a commission to be appointed in 2015 to establish district apportionment, and shall 2021 and every tenth year thereafter be a district reapportionment year? • • • • • •• f • • • rn Countv Coundl- Seven Districts. At-Large 1. "Section 3.02. Composition. There shall be a council of seven members [elected at-large]. All members_shell be elected at-la by all reeiste ed vot s in Leta u tv. _ac of the even members hall reside in and shall be elected from a • crate council district. Section 3.03. Terms. The terms of office of [councilmembers] coundl members shall be for two years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day In December following their election. No person shall be elected to the office for more than four consecutive two year terms. Section 3.04. Qualifications. A. To be eligible for the coundl, a person must be a citizen of the United States and must have been a duly qualified [elector] registered voter of the county for at least two years Immediately preceding his or her filing candidacy papers for election [or appointment]. in addition, candi • etas fo he coundl ust ate which district they Mend t • epresent and th .t the have b - en a registered voter of h . d strict f• th orecedlnani etv dams. Should a cound member move f fin. or b remov - • from. any of the sevens • ncIJoositions from which that person me _ elected a 1 replacem . nt AP • o I ee mint net all rep irements of candidate for that position., B. Any [councilman] council member who removes his gibs residence from the county �r district from which elected, or is convicted of a felony, shall immediately forfeit his or her office. Section 3. 19., District Election and Reappointment. & The first election by se • orate council districts shall be In the primary election of 2016. The year 2021 and every tenth year thereafter shall be district reapportionment years. C An initial council district apportionment commission shall be con tituted on or before the first day of April._2015. A cou I c distil rea ., Dort! • nment • mmission h 11 be • nstituted on o be ore the first day of July of each district rea •rrortionment ear or whenever district reapportionment is required by court order. The comm s ion shall consist of seven members. The members ofthe comm sslon shall be an • oil ed b the mayor and confirmed by the council. CRC 2013407 d. C' The initial council district . p • ortionment commission shall be responsible for des' ' nating the rteo - o is boun •cries of he round . • stricts Provide for above. The counci district re . • • • I • nment co n mi on sh . be r • • id - firth rea • • • rtionm _ nt and • in z n _- of those districts. The commission shall elect a chat from amon its members. Any vacancy in the commi lion shall be filled in the s me manner as for an original appointment. The, commission shall act bvthe ma orlty vote _f its m • et i I • and shall establish its own procedures. No member of the commission shall be eligible to become asandidate for election or appointment o the sound in the ' , it _ eiecti • h • uncle any apportionment or re oDortionment Plan a • ' oted by the co mission. The commissio I shall be furnished all necessarvtechnical andsecretarial send: Is. The mayor a ,.d he sou cii shall appropriate fundsto enab the comm s . ion to carryout its dut es. D. In effecting the initial apportionment and each subsea _ ent reapportionment. the commission shall be guid-. d aid om.• iv with all ao • liable Federal and State Laws. L On or before February 1 of the year following appointment the - • „ „ i • n shall file with the county clerk an apportionment or reap • • rtion it ent plan. which shall become effective upon its filing: F Any registered voter may petition thoroper court to compel, by mandamus or otherwise the au • cariate person or Persons t• perform the r duty or to correct any error made in the districtapportionment or rea • o • rtio merit plan, or the court may e such o , er action to effectua . e th • uroosesof this sect' • ash may deem anorooriate. Anvsuch petition must be filed within forty-five calendar days afte the fill a of the plan. G. The commission's tenure shall end upon the filing of its plan." (Deleted material is bracketed; new material is underlined) r 2. Ballot Question — Effective 2016, shall feue#the = council members be elected by districts at-large (North, East, South/Central, West) - - : - - - - - - - - - ' - : - - - - - - - - . • - with a commission to be appointed in 2015 to establish district apportionment, and shall 2021 and every tenth year thereafter be a district reapportionment year? Revised 6/18/12 • • COUNTY OF KAUAI CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION • 2013 Meeting Schedule • 4th Monday except as highlighted below, 4:00 pm or shortly thereafter January 28 February 25 March 25 April 22 May 20 (third Monday due to holiday) June 24 July 22 August 26 September 23 October 28 November 25 lheeemboi r . December 9 (2°d Tuesday) • CM 2013-06 Rosa a 1/29/13 4444 Rice Street, Suite 150 • Lihu`e, Hawaii 96766 • (808) 241 -4919 • Fax (808) 241 -5127