Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_0422_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 5/20/13 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date April 22, 2013 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A 2B Start of Meeting: 4:00 pm End of Meeting: 5:09 pm Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice-Chair Ed Justus. Members: Joel Guy; James Nishida, Patrick Stack Also: Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Winn; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Paula Morikami; Administrative Aide Teresa Tamura, Curtis Shiramizu of Shiramizu Nakamura Loo, Attorneys at Law; and Bert Lyon, Audience Member Excused Members: Mary Lou Barela, Carol Suzawa Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm with 5 Commissioners present. With no changes to the agenda, Chair TenBruggencate stated the agenda was approved as circulated. Approval of Open Session Minutes of March 25, 2013 Mr. Justus moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Business CRC 2013-03 Recommendations from legal analyst Curtis Shiramizu on identifying and proposing non-substantive corrections and revisions to Articles I through IV of the Charter. (On-going) Chair TenBruggencate noted there were no audience members present at the time so the request for public testimony was not relevant. Chair TenBruggencate stated he did not have any changes to the recommended non-substantive corrections and further commented that Mr. Shiramizu was doing precisely what the Commission hoped he would do and more. Mr. Shiramizu said it was called to his attention that "council members" appeared most of the time as one word but in certain areas it appeared as two words and he assumed the Commission would want it to Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION be consistent throughout the Charter. The Commission agreed councilmember should appear as one word. Mr. Shiramizu was asked to continue making suggested changes in the same manner through the rest of the Charter. Mr. Guy moved to defer this item to the next meeting. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Mr. Guy asked how this would be presented to the voters once this process has been completed. Chair TenBruggencate requested an item for the May agenda to discuss how to take the Charter changes to the public. Staff to check with Hawaii Island on how they rolled out their amendments to the voters. Ms. Davis reported that Kaua'i appeared to be the only island still using the masculine pronoun. The other islands are using the noun of the office or officer, which Chair TenBruggencate noted was what this Commission had agreed on. The City and County of Honolulu also uses "its", such as "its members", "its membership", and "its procedures"but there was one supplement(amendment) where they used the term "he or she". It is a tossup with councilmembers being one word or two words. Communication CRC 2013-08 Written Testimony from Mr. Bert Lyon regarding Item CRC 2013-07 on the 3/25/13 Charter Review Commission Agenda as relates to Council Districting Chair TenBruggencate noted that Mr. Lyon was proposing a 5 District/ 2 At-Large scheme but provided written testimony with several scenarios for creating districts. Mr. Stack liked how Mr. Lyon justified his thought process on districting and how things coincided with the U.S. Census track. Chair TenBruggencate said he was also interested in the issue of getting closer to a one man-one vote and Mr. Lyons' suggestion, although it may not be Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION sufficient, gets it closer than some of the other proposals as he lays out the numbers. Attorney Winn said she did a little research on the issue of one man-one vote and the United States Supreme Court, which then goes to the states and local governments, has held that the equal protection clause requires electoral representation be apportioned on a population basis. This requirement means that a state must make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly of equal population as is practicable. There is a little extra leeway for local governments; the divergences can be a little bit higher. A Charter amendment would not provide for the districting as that would be done by a panel or commission. Legally it does need to approach as equal districts as possible based on population unless there is a legitimate consideration for some deviation, which in certain places if there is a huge gap between towns in a county,there may be reasons why location wise there should be deviation. Mr. Nishida asked if the whole issue of districting, other than the part about how many and how separate the districts are, can be left to a commission. Attorney Winn said it would have to be because the population may change in a given year; how often the population is looked at may be something that you would put in the amendment but not something that says it will be a certain way for all time. Chair TenBruggencate said the State Reapportionment Commission reestablishes the districts as populations change. It is set out in the legislation as to how often that happens but there may be some legal basis for how often that needs to happen. Mr. Justus said every time it has been proposed it has always been an apportionment commission that was setup, and every time it was presented it always said every ten years and that the Commission would determine the district boundaries. Chair TenBruggencate added that the census would be the most reasonable way to approach it. Mr. Nishida Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION asked if the Charter had to spell out how many districts there would be. The response was yes, but not where those districts would be. When questioned if it would be legal to tie into the same three districts as the State Legislature since they went through reapportionment Attorney Winn said she did not know how the Legislature was legally set up and therefore could not respond to the question. Mr. Guy said he would assume it is a legal process if the people voted for it and we would be able to follow those boundaries. Attorney Winn said the Charter does tie things back to State law in other provisions. As a supporter of districting, Mr. Guy said he understands it needs more work and he encouraged the Commission to work on the process a little harder and allow it to take its natural progression. Chair TenBruggencate said it appears the majority of the Commission is in favor of considering some form of districting but no one person seems to be firm on a single proposal. Mr. Justus said he did not think the Commission members that are for districting are in agreement on the number of districts there should be, which seems to be the issue holding districting up. Mr. Guy said whatever the number of districts is determined to be, districting is necessary and desirable. Mr. Justus said Mr. Nishida also brought up a valid point in that just because you have districts does not mean you will get accountability. Chair TenBruggencate announced that Mr. Lyon had just entered the meeting at 4:23 p.m. and invited him to share his comments on districting. Bert Lyon—Mr. Lyon stated that he has always been an advocate for districting but the one argument he has heard is that Kaua'i is too small for districting. In 1980, Maui had approximately the same census that Kaua'i has now and it was not too small for Maui then. While he prefers any form of districting Mr. Lyon said the 5 District/2 At-Large, based on the spread sheet he submitted, provides districts that seem to be closer in size. If Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION districting is allowed it would have to be "one man-one vote"but he does not know how that would have to be defined. Chair TenBruggencate stated that before Mr. Lyon arrived, Attorney Winn said that the specific district layout would not be established by this Commission or in the Charter but rather by an apportionment panel. Mr. Lyon thought districting would be an advantage to candidates, especially first time candidates, but overall it is a more representative government where people would be accountable to those in the district and not just to the island as a whole. Mr. Lyon said he thought OHA(Office of Hawaiian Affairs) was a bad model because a lot of voters do not know who the candidates are. Mr. Guy said Maui started districting with 7 Districts/2 At-Large but they also had island wide voting which did not secure the vote from that district. Mr. Guy liked Maui's method because it did not involve reapportionment and although the candidates have to come from that district they still have to work for the island. Mr. Guy said you could win representation for the north shore but still lose the north shore's popular vote and asked Mr. Lyon to comment. Mr. Lyon thought it was still an improvement over the current system because you would have representatives from all the districts in the island but it would still be just as expensive for campaigning as for any other seat. Both the Big Island and O`ahu have true districting where you vote from your district. Mr. Nishida said Maui and the Big Island are really different from Kaua'i. The difference in the districting for Maui is it includes two separate islands. The Big Island is totally different because there are two economic zones, Hilo/Hamakua Coast and Kona, with different populations and different pressures. The Big Island is not separated by islands, but because the economic differences were so big, they were able to get the districting. Mr. Nishida knows it takes a lot to get elected but districting is not important to him because he has seven councilmembers to vote for. Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Justus pointed out that Districts At-Large has never been on the ballot. It has always been partial straight district and partial at-large. Mr. Nishida thought if Districts At-Large were proposed it would get more votes. Chair TenBruggencate said another model could be a limited number of districts and there would have to be somebody from each of those districts represented, but after that you take whoever the next highest vote getters are to fill out the Council. In other words, you would not run for the at- large position but whoever is the next highest vote getter would be the at- large member. Mr. Guy suggested there could be three districts along the Legislative boundaries but have two councilmembers per district and one at-large. Mr. Nishida said he would be more in favor of two people per district. Chair TenBruggencate said it was not clear that if you only have three districts that Hanalei or Kekaha would get a seat because the Kekaha district would include Koloa and the Hanalei district will include Wailua, which may not solve the problem that has been put forward. Mr. Justus said regardless of how the districts are set, Wailua Homesteads and Kapa'a would still be included with the north shore so the majority of that voting populace is going to be Kapa`a-Wailua. Any hope the north shore would have of getting a representative that really looks at the issues is the same challenges faced with the state representative caring about the north shore issues. Mr. Lyon stated in some scenarios he moved the numbers around to get them to come out even. Mr. Justus said the six district possibility gives a more equalized representation and leaves a seat open for an at-large position. Mr. Justus noted that one of the issues was what advantage would there be for those candidates running for at-large positions. If they have to be reelected every two years and campaign the whole island, why would anyone want to run at-large when they could run for district. Mr. Justus said when he first proposed two year terms for district seats and four year terms for at-large seats, the four year term justified the at-large seats by giving the at-large people more of a whole-island perspective and the ability to make more long term changes for the entire island. Suffice it to Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION say this Commission defeated that idea. Mr. Stack felt the at-large candidate would have to have a certain star quality and be well known throughout the island because it would be impossible for that person to be in all the districts during the campaign season. Mr. Stack said he is feeling strongly about the idea of districting, however it is shaped or molded, and is a very legitimate question for the public on how this should be done. Chair TenBruggencate reminded the Commission that the ballot cannot be a polling mechanism; until the Commission settles on a proposal there is nothing to put on the ballot. Attorney Winn agreed that the Commission would need an exact amendment to propose for the ballot. Mr. Guy said the Commission has not touched on some of the benefits that districting would present for some of the districts. Chair TenBruggencate said an issue for consideration that has come up before is neighborhood boards and would rather not deal with the districting issue right now. Mr. Justus said he did not see how creating more bureaucracy would provide better accountability or representation; it is just creating more things to tie people down. Mr. Nishida said the Portland model has 3 councilmembers and a bunch of neighborhood boards and the real work is done in the neighborhood boards. It would depend on the responsibility given to a neighborhood board. Mr. Justus also wanted to know if those neighborhood boards were appointed or elected. Mr. Nishida wanted to know how different the representation from a board member would be from the representation of a councilmember. Mr. Guy said a councilmember from Hanalei would work on the issues all day long, be accountable and knowledgeable of the different efforts and be their voice on the Council. Mr. Guy said people are willing to vote for someone but they do not have time to go to board meetings except for a vocal minority. Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Justus stated there are two different types of voters; the voters that get entrenched and involved and those voters who vote for someone and let them do their job. Accountability is the whole purpose of why talk of districts has come up. If districting does move forward there has to be a way to make them accountable as well. Electing someone only makes them accountable every two years. Mr. Justus said if there is not a mechanism created that requires councilmembers to be accountable and to interact with the people who vote for them, it will just continue to be the same. There is a way to do both with partial districting and creating a system of accountability. Mr. Guy said he was looking to find the best fit for the island by committing to districting and getting everybody on board to whittle away at the various suggestions and while he liked all districts at-large he also saw the challenges and was not ready to vote on any proposal yet. Mr. Lyon added that another advantage of districting would be council campaigns, which have been a type of beauty contest, but could provide some one-on-one races to educate the electorate. Chair TenBruggencate invited Mr. Lyon to stay involved with the discussions on districting as they continue in the future. Mr. Lyon said he would provide a copy to Staff of the paper done by the League of Women Voters in 1990 about districting. Chair TenBruggencate said he had not seen a comprehensive proposal that he liked and currently he was not arguing for districting but if there was a compelling districting proposal that would benefit the community in a substantial way it would probably pass the Commission. The concept of everyone running at-large, with a requirement that each district be represented from the top vote-getters, works in a way. The Chair also said he does not like splitting the Council with 2-year terms and 4-year terms and a" 4/3" or"3/4" districting specifically does not solve the problem for the little communities at the outer ends of the island because they will be Charter Review Commission Open Session April 22, 2013 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION overwhelmed by much more urban areas in the number of votes. A higher number of districts would help to ensure some representation at the periphery. Mr. Stack said at the last meeting he was not clear about what he wanted but after reading Mr. Lyon's proposals, he is now for districting and personally liked the "5/2"but could vote for the "4/3". Attorney Winn said the Commission needs a definite proposal to discuss and tweak, and the full Commission can vote to create a sub-committee, decide what they can discuss, and the information that would be brought Mr. Guy moved to create a Permitted Interaction back to the full Commission for a vote. Group to look at the best districting plan to be brought back to the full Commission. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Mr. Guy stated he would not be at the May meeting. Chair TenBruggencate appointed Commissioners Justus, Stack and Guy to the sub-committee to report back with a proposal. Prompted by an inquiry from Mr. Nishida, Attorney Winn said she could talk with Counsel on Maui to find out how they based their model on populations because of the disparate representation for Moloka`i and Lanai. General law can include topical reasons why districting may vary. Mr. Justus moved to receive the communication from Mr. Lyon with thanks. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, May 20, 2013, 4:00 p.m. Adjournment Mr. Justus moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Jan TenBruggencate, Chair ( ) Approved as is. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.