Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_1216_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 1/27/14 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I December 16, 2013 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A 2B Start of Meeting: 3:01 pm End of Meeting: 4:08 pm Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice-Chair Ed Justus. Members: Mary Lou Barela, Joel Guy; James Nishida; Patrick Stack; Carol Suzawa (3:02 p.m.) 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 3:01 pm with 6 Commissioners present Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of October 28, 2013 Ms. Barela moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Ms. Suzawa entered the meeting at 3 :02 p.m. 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) (Deferred on 10/28/13) Page 64, first paragraph, lines 3 and 10, and Section 27.07 last sentence — use lower case for section Page 65, Section 27.09 — delete numerical value (6) Page 68, Section 30.03 A. last sentence — spell out Sec. as section using lower case Page 68, Section 30.03 B — use lower case for tenure and directors Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Page 69, subsection D, second sentence —pronoun their deemed proper Page 70, second paragraph, line 3 —change such person (originally he or she)to the applicant Page 73, subsection B and D—leave state as lower case Page 74, subsection K—use lower case for board Page 75, Section 30.6 A—use lower case for power authority Page 77, Section 32.02 A—use lower case for county charter and section Page 80, Section 23.02 E—change period following Section 23.02 to a comma; add comma following Boards and Commission File note: Following the meeting, Mr. Shiramizu also noted on Page 80, Section 32.04 that concerning should be capitalized for consistency as a header. Mr. Shiramizu to provide the Commission with a Ramsayer version of the Charter indicating non- substantive corrections as discussed for the January meeting. CRC 2013-16 Request from the Civil Service Commission requesting consideration of a Charter Amendment Proposal for Article XV changing the name from "Personnel Services"to "Human Resources" Mr. TenBruggencate suggested the Commission ask that someone from the Civil Service Commission appear at the next meeting to advise what the impact of this proposal would be and what other issues might come up. Ms. Morikami explained that over the past year the County of Kaua`i has Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION been moving towards centralizing the functions to a Human Resource Department versus having segments of personnel services in different departments. We were going to include this question during the past election but the process had not moved that much towards the Human Resources Department. But now the process is nearly done and it seems appropriate that DPS would be changed to HR. Chair TenBruggencate asked if it was only a title change or are there also changes in the language. Ms. Morikami said it was basically a title change. Ms. Suzawa said previously when this Commission asked if the name change was needed in order to consolidate the offices, the answer was no; they could consolidate offices without the name change. The next question was why does the name need to be changed? At that time, the Commissioners felt that a name change was not a sufficient reason to change the Charter;there were a lot of Charter changes more important unless the change would provide a different impact. The question arose if the funding allocations would be different with the Human Resources Department. Mr. Justus said the proposal was more than a name change. It is clearly stated that the department comes under the general supervision of the Mayor. It also specifies exactly what the Director of Human Resources shall be responsible for, which the Charter previously did not have. It gives the new Department of Human Resources a better legal footing of what their responsibilities are and, in his opinion, is worthy of a proposed Charter amendment. Chair TenBruggencate acknowledged there were several things that were changed in the proposal including the line which addresses directly "and come under the general supervision of the Mayor". That directly addresses Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the issue which previously involved the Police Chief and the Mayor, and he did not feel the Commission should be considering changing the Charter until after hearing from the Court what the current language of those sections of the Charter mean. Attorney Winn said that case was distinguishable; what is going on with the Police Commission is more than general supervision,the issue there was discipline. Whether or not the language is in Article XV, it is already in the section of the Mayor's general powers over the departments. Chair TenBruggencate said that Mr. Justus pointed out that the whole issue is "except as otherwise provided"the Mayor is in charge. The Charter currently says that the Director of Personnel Services is appointed and may be removed by the Commission; exactly as the language of the Police Commission says the Police Chief is appointed and removed by the Commission. This proposal adds additional information that supports the position that has been taken by the Administration in advance of having the judicial input on what the current language means. Chair TenBruggencate questioned if that was putting the cart before the horse. Asked what motivated this proposal, Ms. Barela recalled it was because there was no training in many, many areas and training differed from area to area contributing to lawsuits. Chair TenBruggencate agreed with this recollection saying he did oppose the change at the time but hoped that with a consolidation there would be a more professional cadre of personnel officers. The Commissioners noted they would like to hear more information from Personnel Services and the Civil Service Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Stack moved to defer this item to January and to ask Personnel Services and a member from the Civil Service Commission to be present Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION to answer questions. Mr. Nishida seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 CRC 2013-17 Section 22.06 Initiative and Referendum as it relates to the creation of a subsection E requiring legal review Mr. Justus explained this suggestion came up when they got the report from the county attorney about the certain section of the Charter that had been negated; that section was voter initiated and did not have a legal review before it went before the public. It also seemed that other Charter amendments put before the public which did not receive legal review from the County, or did not have proof of legal review, also were defeated by the court, which costs the County lots of time and money. It could be very simply avoided by offering the service of the County Attorney to review the language from the voter initiated amendment. Whether or not that language is sufficient in the County Attorney's eyes would not prevent it from going on the ballot, but at the very least give that information to the voting public. If the voters feel that is a conflict of interest there is a clause that would allow them to select their own attorney, who has practiced law in the state of Hawaii for at least three years, to do a legal review. Mr. Justus moved to accept this item as a proposed Charter amendment. Mr. Guy seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. Ms. Suzawa said as she read it, it did not make a difference whether it gets on the ballot or not even though she could agree with what Mr. Justus said. The Charter is written so that the public can put whatever they want on the ballot if they have the required signatures. Instead of changing the Charter for everything someone wants are there not procedures that exist for something like this. Mr. Justus asked if there were any requirements for the public in voter initiated amendments that requires them to have their amendment legally reviewed before it gets presented to the public. Mr. Guy asked if voter initiated amendments were automatically reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. Attorney Winn said off the top of her head Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION she did not know. Mr. Guy said the reason for that vehicle is because the voters feel they are not getting things done through the policymakers with the process that is in place, and it could be looked at as a detractor from the public trying to put things on the ballot. To make petitioners aware there would need to be a standard criteria that when a voter petition is presented they be informed that a legal review is required. Motion failed 3:4 by roll call vote: Barela-aye; Guy-nay; Justus-aye; Nishida-nay; Stack-aye; Suzawa-nay; TenBruggencate-nay CRC 2013-18 Section 7.01 Mayor as it relates to Term of Office and the removal of term limits Mr. Justus stated this item was proposed by request. This Board has stated in the past that the idea of term limits was undemocratic and therefore this proposal is to see if this is something they would like to have changed. Mr. Justus moved to accept this item as a proposed Charter amendment. Ms. Suzawa seconded the Mr. Justus said doing research he found the history of how the Mayor's motion. term limits came about interesting. It was proposed as two changes at the same time asking if the Mayor should have a 4 year term and have term limits of two consecutive full terms. It did not give the public the opportunity to vote separately on the 4 year term and whether they wanted term limits. Ms. Suzawa recalled being surprised that ballot question did pass because she felt that asking any individual to consider being a Mayor as a career, but then after 8 years their career is over when they are doing a good job. The voters will reflect whether that person is doing a good job or not and it is too limiting as far as the Charter is concerned. There are not a lot of people who seek that position as an office; if it were long term there might be better candidates. When the voters have had enough of a candidate they don't vote for them. Ms. Suzawa said she agreed with leaving the term open. Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair TenBruggencate said one of the concerns in the past was the voters had turned down 4 year terms for both Mayor and Council repeatedly. The Chair did not think term limits was thrown in as an incentive because the people were not going to give anybody unlimited 4 year terms; he felt 4 year terms were only acceptable with term limits. Mr. Stack stated he was totally in favor of term limits and they did not need career politicians. Our country was never designed to have career politicians;term limits are not only good but highly necessary. Mr. Nishida said if an issue is something the public is not even going to consider it should not even go on the ballot; he felt most people like term Motion failed 1:6 by roll call vote: Barela-nay; limits. Secondly, Council term limits are coming up next year and they Guy-nay; Justus-nay; Nishida-nay; Stack-nay; should at least go through that cycle first. Suzawa-aye; TenBruggencate-nay CRC 2013-19 Section 3.03 Council as it relates to Tem of Office and the removal of term limits Mr. Justus said this was the same basic principle as the previous item and again proposed from members of the community. This proposal would remove term limits for the Council. Mr. Justus moved to accept this item as a proposed Charter amendment. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Mr. Guy said he wanted to echo what Commissioner Nishida said earlier in the sense that Council term limits have not even gone into effect yet and he would like to see that play out before looking at changing the Charter. Mr. Guy said he would not support this proposal. Ms. Suzawa noted that Council terms were only for 2 years. Chair TenBruggencate said the last decision by the voters was for four terms and that process has not yet started. Motion failed 0:7 by roll call vote: Barela-nay; Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Guy-nay; Justus-nay; Nishida-nay; Stack-nay; Suzawa-nay; TenBruggencate-nay CRC 2013-21 Approval of 2014 Meeting Schedule Mr. Justus suggested the meeting dates for November and December be moved a week earlier in consideration of the holidays. Staff to reschedule as requested and present a revised schedule for the January meeting Mr. Guy asked the Staff to also provide a timeline for Charter amendments. CRC 2013-20 Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2014 Ms. Barela nominated James Nishida for Chair. Ms. Suzawa seconded the nomination. Motion carried 7:0 by roll call vote: Barela-aye; Guy- aye; Justus-aye; Nishida-aye; Stack-aye; Suzawa-aye; TenBruggencate-aye Mr. Justus nominated Joel Guy for Vice Chair. Mr. Stack seconded the nomination. Ms. Suzawa nominated Jan TenBruggencate for Vice Chair. Ms. Barela seconded the nomination. Mr. Justus said when he first came on the Commission one of the things he heard members say is they liked to give everybody a chance at the positions and since Mr. TenBruggencate has served recently as Vice Chair and Chair and Mr. Guy has not served in either of those capacities that is why he was nominated to give him the opportunity. Mr. TenBruggencate elected as Vice Chair 4:3 by roll call vote: Barela-Jan; Guy-Joel; Justus- Joel; Nishida-Jan; Stack-Joel; Suzawa-Jan; TenBruggencate-Jan Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, January 27, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. Charter Review Commission Open Session December 16, 2013 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Adjournment Mr. Justus moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:08 p.m. Ms. Barela seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Jan TenBruggencate, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.