Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_0127_Minutes Open_APPROVEDCOUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 2/24/14 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date January 27, 2014 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 Start of Meeting: 4:03 p.m. End of Meeting: 4:36 p.m. Present Chair James Nishida; Vice -Chair Jan TenBruggencate. Members: Joel Guy; Ed Justus; 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. Testifiers: Cathy Adams, Civil Service Commission; Lyndon Yoshioka, Elections Administrator Excused Member Mary Lou Barela Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair Nishida called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. with 6 Commissioners present Approval of Minutes Regularpen Session Minutes of December 16, 2013 Mr. TenBruggencate moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Business CRC 2013-03 Review of Recommendations in Ramseyer form from legal Chair Nishida noted that the review of the non - substantive corrections to the Charter has been deferred to the February meeting. analyst Curtis Shiramizu on identifying and proposing non -substantive corrections and revisions to the Kauai County Charter (On -going) (Deferred to 2/24/ 14 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" (Deferred from 12/16/13 a. Report on Findings and Recommendations of the Human Resources Taskforce Cathy Adams, out -going Chair for the Civil Service Commission, explained the conversion to a Human Resources Department started in 2011 when the Cost Control Commission advised the Civil Service Commission that there were personnel staff throughout the various departments who were all doing Charter Review Commission Open Session January 27, 2014 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION different things, and not under the supervision of the Director of Personnel Services. There was a great deal of concern that there were inconsistent practices and inconsistent record -keeping, which lead to the Task Force being created. Ms. Adams said she had looked at prior Charter Commission minutes in which it was asked if this was simply a title change. It is partly a title change from Department of Personnel Services to Human Resources, but it is more than that. A number of the FTEs (full time employees) have been consolidated into the department, and the personnel files have been relocated into one master file. There has been a great deal of work on a human resources information system; in the past information was kept on 351x5" file cards, but the department is now moving towards an IS (information system) to manage that data. They have changed how they handle worker's compensation, training, and have also put together an orientation program for new employees. It has been a great deal of work by the Department of Personnel Services, as well as the departments from which all the FTEs came from, to pull this all together. They are doing flow charts to indicate what is occurring, and who does what when someone is hired in order to build clarity around the processes. So, while it is partly a name change, it is hoped that with this process it will add clarity to what people are responsible for as well as clarifying the duties from which the Civil Service Commission will be able to recruit a new director for the department. Mr. TenBruggencate questioned the addition of the language and come under the general supervision of the Mayor in Section 15.04, which does not seem to address directly the issues Ms. Adams raised, but is one that is currently in the courts. Asked about the origin of that language Ms. Adams said the Civil Service Commission hires, fires and disciplines (sic) the director of personnel; that is not the mayor's responsibility. Beyond that there is this undefined supervision the Commission thought would be helpful to clarify for the future. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 27, 2014 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. TenBruggencate asked if Ms. Adams thought the Commission would object to the inclusion of the word discipline, in addition to appointing and removing, because that is the issue that has come up and is in the courts. Ms. Adams asked if he meant that it was the Civil Service's responsibility to which Mr. TenBruggencate said yes. Ms. Adams said she would have to go back to the Commission to get their agreements but she personally did not have a problem with that. Mr. TenBruggencate said his concern is if they are going to make a shift from a weak mayor form of government then that should be considered across the board, and not change it on a case -by - case basis. Mr. TenBruggencate indicated he had no problem with the rest of the proposed amendment, and thought it was a great advancement for the community to move toward a more comprehensive approach. Mr. Justus suggested the proposed language regarding general supervision by the Mayor in Section 15.04 is covered in the Charter in Section 7.05 A in referring to the Mayor's powers except as otherwise provided, exercise direct supervision over all departments and coordinate all administrative activities and the inclusion of the phrase general supervision would be redundant. Ms. Adams said Mr. Justus may see it as redundant, but the Commission is attempting to clarify for the future to mean the Mayor really does have supervisory responsibility. The Commission still holds the termination responsibility. Ms. Adams said it would not bother her to remove that line even though she still felt it was a good idea to include it. Mr. Justus said where it refers to supervision the Commission is not referring to disciplinary. Ms. Adams said the Commission is very clear they stay out of operations; it is an appellate board who terminates and hires the director. Chair Nishida asked if the move to a Human Resources Department would Charter Review Commission Open Session January 27, 2014 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION stop if this Charter amendment does not pass. Ms. Adams said no, they were well down that road. Mr. TenBruggencate told the Chair that he would be in support of removing the general supervision line. Recess The meeting was recessed at 4:17 p.m. Council Administrative Assistant Eddie Topenio gave the Oath of Office to reappointed Board members Edgar S. Justus IV and Charles Patrick Stack The meeting was called back to order at 4:20 p.m. Business — Mr. Justus moved to approve the proposed (cont'd.) amendment for Article XV. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Mr. Justus moved to amend the language by removing in Section 15.04 and come under the general supervision of the Mayor. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:1 (nay -Guy) Motion to approve the main motion as amended carried 6:0 CRC 2014-01 Request dated 12/17/13 from the County Clerk on behalf of the Elections Administrator requesting consideration of a Charter Amendment Proposal for Article XXVII, Section 27.07 to align Charter requirements relating to the format of recall ballot questions with State ballot design requirements Lyndon Yoshioka, Elections Administrator, said they are trying to ensure that the language in the Charter is consistent with what is in the Statutes, as well as the Administrative Rules. The Charter requires that the voting target be to the right of the ballot question, however State Law and the Administrative Rules have changed that to allow the voting target, the place Charter Review Commission Open Session January 27, 2014 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION where the person will mark on the ballot, to be where ever the (voting) system dictates it needs to be, whether on the left or the right. Some do not believe this change needs to be made, but it would be cleaner to allow that voting target for the recall ballot questions to be on either side of the ballot depending on what the system requirements are. Mr. Justus said because the Charter language has not changed that means the marks they have to hit will always be on the right side currently. Mr. Yoshioka said that is what they have been advised. Receiving requests for meetings to discuss placing a recall question on the ballot resulted in the Elections staff researching the Charter in which we noticed this would have been a problem because the current voting system requires that voting targets be to the left. If money and time were not an issue the vendor could be requested to make those changes, but it would be very expensive and very lengthy because these types of changes need to be recertified by the Federal government before the voting system vendor would be allowed to adopt and implement the change in a voting system that is used by a jurisdiction conducting Federal elections. Mr. TenBruggencate asked if this issue arises elsewhere in the Charter with regard to other elections. Mr. Yoshioka said other sections do not specify one side or the other so any system used will be able to accommodate those elections. Mr. TenBruggencate said as Mr. Yoshioka was describing the change he referenced meeting the requirements of the voting system, but he also mentioned complying with State law, and questioned why that language was not in the proposed ballot question. Mr. Yoshioka said they could refer to counsel as to whether or not that should be included. Mr. Justus moved to accept Article XXVII, Section 27.07, as a Charter amendment. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Mr. TenBruggencate moved to amend the Charter Review Commission Open Session January 27, 2014 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION proposal to include the language conform with State law and in the ballot question. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Ms. Suzawa asked whose voting system requirement was being referred to in the ballot question. Mr. Yoshioka said the County contracts with a vendor to provide the vote counting/tabulation as well as the actual voting devices used at the polling places, which are used state-wide. Mr. Yoshioka explained the RFP (request for proposal) and bid requirements used in the selection of a vendor. Mr. Yoshioka asked if it would be possible before the ballot language is set to allow the State's General Counsel to review it to make sure it is not in conflict with anything. Attorney Winn stated if the Commission approves this proposal, she will do a legal review, and as part of that legal review she could check with the State. Mr. Yoshioka offered to provide the name of the State Attorney they work with. Mr. Justus said if they were changing the ballot question perhaps they should change the Charter language to read The ballots at such recall election shall be in accordance with State Law. Mr. TenBruggencate did not think that was necessary because you cannot violate State Law. Motion to amend the proposal carried 6:0 Motion to approve the main motion as amended carried 6:0 CRC 2013-21 Approval of 2014 Meeting Schedule as revised 12/19/13 Mr. TenBruggencate moved to approve the revised schedule. Ms. Suzawa seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Announcements Next meeting: Monday, February 24, 2014, 4:00 p.m. Mr. Justus requested an overall timeline for submitting amendments to the ballot. Staff agreed this would be compiled as soon as the official submittal dates are received from the elections staff. Charter Review Commission Open Session January 27, 2014 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Adjournment Chair Nishida adjourned the meeting at 4:36 p.m. Submitted by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. () Approved with amendments. See minutes of Reviewed and Approved by: meeting. James Nishida, Chair