Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_1028_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 12/16/13 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I October 28, 2013 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A 2B Start of Meeting: 4:00 p.m. End of Meeting: 6: 15 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. Audience Members: County Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura, Community Member Bert Lyon Excused Member Mary Lou Barela Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm with 6 Commissioners present. The Chair said he would add the 2 communications from Bert Lyon to Item CRC 2013- 15 and the agenda stands approved as submitted. Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of September 23, 2013 Mr. Justus moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Mr. Justus stated on Page 6 there was no record of him giving thanks to Barbara for help with the language regarding the elections and districting; he believes it is necessary to thank those who help the Commissioners. Motion to approve the minutes as corrected carried 6:0 Business CRC 2013-03 Recommendations from legal analyst Curtis Shiramizu on identifying and proposing non-substantive corrections and revisions to Articles XXVII through XXXII of the Charter (On-going) Noting Mr. Shiramizu was not available for this meeting, Chair TenBruggencate requested a motion to defer the item to November. Mr. Justus moved to defer. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 CRC 2013- 13 Discuss whether to propose a charter amendment to clarify language as relates to the term removal in Section 19. 13 A (Deferred 9/23/13) Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Stack said he wanted to discuss whether there was a better alternative for the term removal and what was meant by the word. Chair TenBruggencate asked if it should be extended to say removal from office. The Chair said for him cause for removal clearly meant removal from office, and asked the Attorney if clarifying it to say removal from office would be a substantive change. Attorney Winn said that would be a substantive change. Mr. Nishida moved to receive CRC 2013-13. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 CRC 2013-14 Section 32.01 County Auditor as it relates to electing the county auditor instead of appointment by council Section 22.06 Initiative and Referendum as it relates to the creation of a subsection E requiring legal review Section 7.01 Mayor as it relates to Term of Office and the removal of term limits Section 3.03 Council as it relates to Term of Office and the removal of term limits Article XXXIII New article creating an Attorney Commission for oversight of the County Attorney's Office Chair TenBruggencate said this series of amendments was proposed by Mr. Justus and he would suggest looking at each proposal briefly, and if the Commission deems them worthy of further serious discussion that they become independent agenda items. At this point Chair TenBruggencate mentioned he would not be at the next meeting and the Vice Chair would be running the meeting to which Mr. Justus announced he would also not Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION be at the November meeting. Based on the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair at the next meeting, Chair TenBruggencate recommended Mr. Stack, as a past Chair serve as the Chair Pro-Tem. Mr. Nishida moved to elect Pat Stack as Chair Pro-Tem for November. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0(Mr. Guy momentarily out of the meeting room) CRC 2013-15 Discussion and consideration of a proposal to elect Councilmembers by district from seven roughly equal populated districts With the arrival of Ms. Yukimura and Mr. Lyon, Chair TenBruggencate moved to the item proposing the creation of seven roughly equal districts to be elected by district for the County Council. Ms. Yukimura provided written testimony (on file) and stated she was there as an individual Councilmember. The key questions are, is the present system broken, and if so in what way will districting solve the ways it is broken or will it make things worse. Proposals on districting will be a structural change on a very basic system, and will affect how decisions are made on the County Council. The main question should be, will this structure being proposed produce the best decisions for the common good of the people of Kaua`i. It appears the part of the thrust for districts is how to make it easier for candidates to run, but that should not be the main question. It is harder to be a candidate in an at-large system, and probably more expensive, but it may make for better decision making that the candidate has to know about the whole island and the issues around the island, both district issues as well as island-wide issues. With a district system there is no incentive to know about the whole island, and districts would create a momentum toward separation rather than unity. It will put incentives on thinking by districts rather than thinking of the Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION island or county as a whole. If a councilmember is accountable to everybody they have to think about what the best decision would be. When a councilmember has to vote for their district's interest because their political future depends on it, it may not be for the higher good of the island or the county. Ms. Yukimura does not think the population is large enough at this point that it needs to be broken down by districts. When it does get to that point, a system where the majority is elected at large will still be very important. An at-large system gives voters more possibility of representation that a districted system because of the probability that one or more of your candidate choices get elected. There is also the possibility that a district system will not allow the best candidates on the island to surface and be elected. Mr. Lyon provided written testimony (on file) and said he is a proponent of council districting. It is Mr. Lyon's belief that the system is broken, and that the council race is more of a popularity race. He further noted he cannot remember a race where two councilmembers debated each other on a single issue before the public. Mr. Lyon said he would prefer having one vote in his district where he knows the candidates rather than seven votes for people he does not really know, and does not know how they stand on the issues by what they say during the campaigns. More often than not the top seven vote getters are the top fundraisers. Mr. Lyons felt that Kaua`i was now at the population point where the neighbor island had established their forms of districting so he did not think Kaua`i was too small. Mr. Lyon provided a worksheet to the Commission showing the population breakdown for a 7 district proposal. If districting goes to the ballot it may as well go pure districting because mixing districting with at-large does get confusing. He said he wants to have the opportunity for a minority voice to be on the council. Mr. Lyon also stated that within the last 24 hours he became a strong supporter of the 7 district council. Chair TenBruggencate thanked Mr. Lyon for the remarkable amount of work he put in on the Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION worksheets provided to the Commission. Chair TenBruggencate suggested the Commission look at taking this issue to some type of public forum. Attorney Winn pointed out at the last meeting the motion for a panel to take this issue to public forum failed, and currently there is no motion on the floor. Mr. Guy felt they had gone to the public, whether it was electronic or meetings in Lrhu`e, and stated this is the public forum. Mr. Justus moved to accept this item as a Charter amendment. Attorney Winn stated the main motion was deferred to this meeting and had not been voted on yet. Mr. Justus called for the vote. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Attorney Winn explained they would be voting on the exact language proposed, and then it would have to go to the Attorney's Office for legal review with the results coming back to the Commission. The Commission would then have one more opportunity to vote on whether the proposed amendment would go on the ballot. Ms. Suzawa pointed out that in the past it appeared that during the meetings there was support for an amendment on the county manager proposal. When it went out to community meetings, the outcome was very different from what was discussed at the Commission meetings. This proposal should be given the same opportunity rather than setting it up for misunderstanding later. Attorney Winn said that was voted down at the last meeting. Mr. Justus asked if the language in the packet is what the Attorney would review. Attorney Winn said yes. Mr. Justus said the language in the packet is not suitable for Charter language. Attorney Winn said the proper format is not at issue; it is whether or not the Commission has the authority to do this. Attorney Winn said she would assume this is the language the Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Commission wants, and it would just be a matter of placing the brackets and underscores at a later time. Chair TenBruggencate called a recess at 5:22 p.m. The meeting resumed at 5:30 p.m. Chair TenBruggencate said he misunderstood and thought the language could be written later if the concept was approved. He further stated that Mr. Justus said he could put together the proper language if the Commission could recess for an additional ten minutes. Mr. Nishida moved to defer this item until such time as it can be taken out for public meeting. Attorney Winn pointed out that a subcommittee took the issue of the county manager to public meetings, which did not require agenda postings. Chair TenBruggencate said they could establish a full public hearing in this room or multiple hearings in multiple locations. Attorney Winn said the public can attend the meetings at any time;this is not a body that is required to hold public hearings. Mr. Nishida moved that a subcommittee of 3 members go out to the public for a series of meetings to chit chat about districting. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Mr. Justus reminded the Commission they do not have the proper language to vote on, and he is requesting ten minutes to put the proper language together. Attorney Winn stated the main motion still has not been voted on. Chair TenBruggencate said he understood the proposal is to defer this matter until such time as a 3 member subcommittee has been formed to go out and hold public meetings. Mr. Nishida added that it is based on what was currently submitted, not the new proper language. Mr. Stack said there is already a subcommittee to which Attorney Winn advised the Commission that subcommittee had completed its function so a new subcommittee would be required. Mr. Guy asked why they were forming a new committee to go back out on districting to which the response was because it is the motion on the floor. Mr. Justus said he Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION understood the desire to go out and get the public's opinion, but it is also important to consider that the people who show up to public meetings do not necessarily represent the majority of people who vote;they may be the majority in the room, but not necessarily represent the majority, which makes it difficult to gauge what the public's reaction is. The best way to get the public's opinion is to ask them on a ballot. Motion to take this districting proposal to the public carried 4:2 (nay-Justus; Guy) Chair TenBruggencate appointed Ed Justus, Jimmy Nishida and Joel Guy to the subcommittee to go out to the public, gauge their reaction on a 7 district proposal with a report back to the Commission as a whole at the February meeting. Attorney Winn reminded the Commission that the body cannot discuss the report until the next meeting; if the Commission votes favorably it goes to the Attorney for legal review, with no guarantee of a specific turn-around time, and then it returns to the Commission for a final vote. Chair TenBruggencate asked if other commissioners could show up at the meetings if they stand quietly in the back. After explaining that would require a posted agenda, Chair TenBruggencate questioned the first amendment rights to which Attorney Winn said first amendment rights are different when it is part of their job. Asked if the subcommittee needs the language for the ballot question, Attorney Winn said that could be part of the report they provide. The subcommittee can make recommendations in their report to amend the proposal, but they cannot amend it on their own. Chair TenBruggencate said that Ms. Morikami had pointed out the fourth paragraph on Tie Votes does not make any sense given a 7 member district and recommended removing those three lines. Attorney Winn cautioned that if the Chair was going to start amending the proposal then all the changes should be made and put into Ramsayer format. Mr. Nishida moved to remove the three lines Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION regarding Tie Votes. Mr. Stack moved to recess the meeting at 5:48 p.m. to allow Mr. Justus to make the necessary changes to the proposal. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 The meeting was called back to order at 6:02 p.m. Chair TenBruggencate said there is a proposal on the floor, which would require a motion to amend the language for a 7 member district. Mr. Justus so moved. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Mr. Justus explained the only changes made in Section 1.03 were changing "at-large"to "district". Motion to amend the proposal for a 7 member district carried 6:0 Mr. Stack made a motion to reconsider the vote just taken on districting. Motion died for a lack of a second. (continued) Chair TenBruggencate recommended because of the late hour that the Commission simply vote on whether the items proposed go on the next meeting's agenda as separate items. CRC 2013-14 Section 32.01 County Auditor as it relates to electing the county auditor instead of appointment by council Mr. Justus moved to place §32.01 on the November agenda as a separate item. Motion died for lack of a second. Section 22.06 Initiative and Referendum as it relates to the creation of a subsection E requiring legal review Mr. Justus moved to place §22.06 on the November agenda as a separate item. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:1 (nay- Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Nishida) Section 7.01 Mayor as it relates to Term of Office and the removal of term limits Mr. Justus moved to place §7.01 on the November agenda as a separate item. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:2 (nay-Guy, TenBruggencate) Section 3.03 Council as it relates to Term of Office and the removal of term limits Mr. Justus moved to place §3.03 on the November agenda as a separate item. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:2 (nay-Guy, TenBruggencate) Article XXXIII New article creating an Attorney Commission for oversight of the County Attorney's Office Mr. Justus moved to place Article XXXIII on the November agenda as a separate item. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion failed 2:4 (nays- Nishida, Suzawa, Guy, TenBruggencate) Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, November 25, 2013, 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Stack will chair that meeting. Chair TenBruggencate requested that the December meeting be moved up so as not to interfere with the holidays. Staff to confirm the availability of December 16 as the meeting date. Adjournment Chair TenBruggencate adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Jan TenBruggencate, Chair Charter Review Commission Open Session October 28, 2013 Page 10 ( ) Approved as is. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.