Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_0826_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 9/23/13 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I August 26, 2013 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A 2B Start of Meeting: 4:00 p.m. End of Meeting: 5:31 p.m. Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice-Chair Ed Justus (4:10 p.m.). Members: Mary Lou Barela, 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 and Curtis Shiramizu of Shiramizu Nakamura Loo, Attorneys at Law Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with 6 Commissioners present Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of July 22, 2013 Ms. Barela moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Business CRC 2013-03 Recommendations from legal analyst Curtis Shiramizu on identifying and proposing non-substantive corrections and revisions to Articles XVI through XX of the Charter (On-going) Section 16.03: First sentence change "or" to "of to read: No person shall be a member of the liquor control commission (Official version is correct; typo appeared in codified version. Mr. Shiramizu explained that the changes that appear for these sections incorporate some changes that were not made in any of the previous sections relating to how numbers are to be treated. The principles in the Hawai'i Legislative Drafting Manual put out by the State Legislative Reference Bureau, while mainly for State Statutes and documents, can be applied here. Questions on capitalization are addressed in these sections and the Commission previously decided to keep everything in lower case; the LRB uses lower case for section, chapter with the exception of when it refers to a Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION specific, i.e., capitalize state when it refers to the State of Hawai'i and the usage is as a noun or possessive form of the noun (the State's fiscal condition); do not capitalize state if it is used as an adjective (state governor, state archives) or refers generally to other states. Chair TenBruggencate said he had no problem with using that standard generally, but suggested if there is anything that raises Mr. Shiramizu's eyebrows he should bring it to the Commission's attention. Section 16.04 B: Insert a comma following suspend and following importation. Mr. Shiramizu explained punctuation gets complicated but basically in a series of three or more items, insert a comma before the conjunction and the final item. Chair TenBruggencate said that is clearer and prevents misconception although he may not agree with the grammar. Mr. Justus entered the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Based on the comma rule, Mr. Justus asked if there should be a comma inserted in Section 17.01 following manager and before and chief engineer. The response was no because the title is manager and chief engineer. Section 17.03 B: County's preceding general plans is correctly capitalized. Section 17.03 C: Use lower case for chapter 145-A. In a discussion on the Revised Laws of Hawaii, Attorney Winn said with the wording as it currently is does not change anything as the words and as may be hereafter provided for by law covers changes. Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Section 18.03: Delete the decimal and two zeros indicating cents. Chair Stack asked if they should use the words fifty thousand dollars in addition to the numerical value of$50,000. Mr. Shiramizu cited from the Legislative Drafting Manual to leave out figures where they are merely repetition of written words. The Chair pointed out in this situation it is the figure but not the written word so it is not a repetition. Mr. Shiramizu said to spell out numbers generally except if it takes more than four words to spell out a number, then use the figure (one hundred twenty-two; 1,722) Section 18.03: Change $50,000 to fifty thousand dollars Section 19.01: Delete the before both dates listed. Section 19.03: Place a period following budget to read: shall be a balanced budget. The total expenditures and appropriations... ... . The Commission again discussed whether to capitalize chapter, section, article when it is combined with a number. Mr. Shiramizu cited: Use initial capitals sparingly. Generally, designations of state and county government officers and agencies are not capitalized. References to divisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes or the Hawaii State Constitution are not capitalized (examples were verbally provided). Chair TenBruggencate said given that do they need to change Chapter on page 34, 17.03 C, to lower case. Mr. Shiramizu said Chapter 145-A would be changed to sections 11 to 34 of chapter 54 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, as amended and using lower case. The Articles (I through XV) reviewed previously will need to be revisited for consistency in using lower case. Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Following a discussion of diacritical marks, Mr. Shiramizu said he did not know if the HRS has an okina in it and questioned whether or not it should be added. Attorney Winn said that was probably not a legal question; generally the County wants to use the okina. Chair TenBruggencate stated that it is also State policy to use it so he suggested the Commission should also use it. Section 19.08 E: Mr. Shiramizu pointed out that a hyphen was inserted in re-allotted in the official amendment(2002). Section 19.09 B: Insert a comma following agencies in the third sentence and following bonds in the fifth sentence for clarity. Section 19.10 B: Clarification was asked on whether councilmembers was determined to be one word or two words. Mr. Justus said it did not look pretty as one word. (Staff to follow up to see if a previous determination has been made on one word or two words). Section 19.13 A: Mr. Stack asked if the Commission needed to define the word "removal". Attorney Winn said that would be a substantive change. Mr. Shiramizu pointed out that the highlighted section does not read well for him and his suggestion is noted in the comment section for the Commission's consideration. Chair TenBruggencate did not feel this section needed changing but asked Staff to make this section of the Charter an agenda item for September. Section 19.15 B: Delete the comma in the third line following the word necessary and in the last line following the word introducing. Section 19.15 C(2): Mr. Justus suggested removing the words The moneys in so the section starts with the words this fund may since it seems Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION unnecessary to say it. Mr. Justus asked what the difference is between "the moneys in this fund" and "this fund". Attorney Winn said that would be a question for the Director of Finance because there are funds for various things, and she does not know the various sources where the money comes from and does not have the knowledge at this point to answer the question. Mr. Justus said he would withdraw his comment. Section 19.15 C(2): Insert of in the second sentence between payment and interest. Section 19.15 C(5): Use lower case for the word Council in the first sentence. Section 19.17: Use lower case for the word county in the last sentence. Section 19.16: Need to clarify whether State should be upper or lower case. Section 19:11: Add a period after the sub-section title: Appropriations: Reduction and Transfer. Section 19.18 A and B: Use lower case for the word county in both sub- sections. Section 19.19 B: Use lower case for state law. Section 19.20: Use lower case for county in the next to last sentence. Section 19.21: Delete (90) and spell out the number. Also capitalize due in the sub-title:Past Due Accounts. Section 20.02: Use lower case for the word county. Chair TenBruggencate Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION pointed out that the trend has been to use lower case for the word "county" except in the phrase "County of Kaua'i". Sections 20.02 F, Section 20.03 A and B: Use lower case for the word county. Section 20.03 A: Spell out dollar amount as one thousand dollars. Section 20.04 A: Change councilpersons to "councilmembers". Chair TenBruggencate said at the end of this exercise, the Commission needs to discuss whether "councilmember" should be one or two words. Section 20.05 G: change him or herself to oneself. There was discussion on whether to change govern to "conduct". Since Attorney Winn had a concern with changing the word, the Commission decided to leave it as govern. Chair TenBruggencate said that the Commission needs to deal with councilmember as one word or two words. Staff made note that County of Maui uses two words, City and County of Honolulu uses one word, and Hawaii Island use two words. The majority of the Commission preferred using two words. CRC 2013-11 Update from the County Attorney on how the Charter Review Commission can handle the invalidation of Charter Section 3.19, and whether the block of text can be removed from the Charter as part of the non-substantive changes or if the Section should be moved to the end of the Charter(On-going) Attorney Winn showed the Commission the original Charter with the amendments attached at the end so they would better understand the official version. The only person who can make a new official version is the County Clerk and until the County Clerk changes the official copy it does not matter Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION how it looks. If after the Commission goes through all the changes and the voters have voted, it will be added as an amendment at the back. Until the day and time the County Clerk does redo the Charter, if the Commission wants to make it cleaner, Attorney Winn believed deleting the provisions of the sections that have been declared unconstitutional would be a non- substantive change in that the meaning of the Charter would not be changed because the Court has determined that section of the Charter does not stand. Attorney Winn said with the original version of the Charter she merely draws a line through anything that is not valid. The unofficial version can look like whatever the person drafting the unofficial version wants it to look like. Attorney Winn verified that the official time for filing an appeal on Section 3.19 has passed so the Judge's final ruling stands. Attorney Winn said the same application applies to the `Ohana Tax amendment. Chair TenBruggencate thought the Commission should remove those items that were no longer valid from the Charter as part of the non-substantive Mr. Justus moved to remove the two sections corrections. (3.19 and the notation at the back of the Codified version relating to real property taxation)from the Charter as part of the proposed corrections. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 CRC 2013-12 Overview of the findings and recommendations of the Special Committee on County Districting to the Charter Review Commission, pursuant to HRS 92-2.5, for discussion and possible decision-making by the Commission as a whole at its September 23, 2013 meeting Mr. Justus, who chaired the Subcommittee examining the language for a proposed amendment for Council partial-districting, provided the Commission with a written report of their discussions. Those discussions Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION included a meeting with County Clerk Rick Watanabe and Lyndon Yoshioka from the Elections Office on how their offices would be affected, as well as what possible financial impact there could be. Basically the Subcommittee gathered that the County Clerk's/Election's Offices will be able to handle whatever decision this Commission makes in presenting to the voters some form of districting. That Office did not really seem to have an exact opinion on whether smaller or bigger districts were better since either would present a different set of problems, but they were confident their Office would have no problem with whatever format was proposed. The biggest amount of work would come during the very first district apportionment. After that there would not be a lot of work until ten years later when there would be a district reapportionment committee. At the next Subcommittee meeting we came up with the language that is in the report proposing Five Districts with Two At-Large seats, which is probably the biggest change. The rest of the language matches all the other district proposals that have been presented over the years regarding qualifications such as creation of a Section 3.19 of district election and reapportionment. The only major difference is changing the proposal from being Four Districts with Three At-Large to being Five Districts with Two At-Large. Mr. Stack said he thought the time for Districting had come. There are certain parts of the County that are seemingly unrepresented. By employing the Five Districts, which would be in concert with the most recent Census in terms of geography and population trends, it gives fair and equal representation to each one of the five districts, and that has not existed in quite some time if ever. Allowing two of the vote getters to remain at-large also seems to be in concert with what has been done for a long time. Mr. Guy said he has been on the Charter Commission for a number of years Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and this has been the most important and exciting thing he has been a part of to this point. Mr. Guy noted his appreciation of everyone's help and support. Attorney Winn reminded the Commission they could not deliberate on this issue until the next meeting. Ms. Suzawa asked if there will be guidelines such as considering population for equal representation because that was not part of the Subcommittee report. Mr. Justus said according to the one-man/one-vote principle,the five districts would have to be as equal as possible, separated by population. A map was not included to show how that would work because that has to be determined by the District Apportionment Committee. The County Elections Office would work with the Apportionment Committee and give them all the relevant information on what type of population is out there and then hire a GIS person who would be able to graph it out based on the population numbers. Ms. Suzawa said there will be a lot of questions of where the districts are before the voters say they like it or not; it is asking the voters to vote in the blind. Mr. Justus said he would like to be able to present a rough idea of where those lines would be and will provide a map at the next meeting to give a rough idea of what it would look like. Mr. Nishida said the Subcommittee had done good work on the proposal. Mr. Nishida asked if they could do a public hearing on this for the next meeting rather than just placing it on the agenda. Staff informed Mr. Nishida that a public hearing requires a 30-day notice. Chair TenBruggencate pointed out that the Commission needs to first work on this at the next meeting. Chair TenBruggencate said this does raise the possibility that a very popular second place finisher in a district election could have more votes than either of the at-large candidates and still not be elected to the County Council. Mr. Justus thought that would be extremely Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION rare. The Chair said that happens all the time in Maui County. Chair TenBruggencate said if they run at-large they could win but if they run for the district there is the potential of losing to a more powerful candidate. Mr. Justus said that would be correct and that is the risk because a candidate is required to state if they are running for a district seat. Ms. Suzawa asked if there was only one candidate in a district and they received only one vote, would they be elected. The response was yes. Ms. Suzawa asked if the proposal allowed for someone to vote for all 5 districts. Chair TenBruggencate said he read the report to be that everyone island-wide could vote for each district. The Subcommittee members stated that was not the case; people would vote for their own district but everyone would vote for the at-large candidate(s). Mr. Justus said the Subcommittee did discuss partial districts at-large and he would include this in an amended report for the next meeting. Mr. Stack asked if this was the time to bring this to the public. It was determined since the Commission cannot act on the information at this time there was nothing to present to the public. Chair TenBruggencate said public testimony would always be accepted when the public is present. Ms. Suzawa so moved. Ms. Barela seconded the Chair TenBruggencate called for a motion to accept the Subcommittee report motion. Motion carried 7:0 with thanks to the three committee members. Next Meeting Monday, September 23, 2013 —4:00 p.m., Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2 A/B Adjournment Ms. Barela moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:31 p.m. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Jan TenBruggencate, Chair Charter Review Commission Open Session August 26, 2013 Page 11 (X ) Approved as circulated 9/23/13 ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.