Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_1124_Minutes Open_APPROVEDCOUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 1/26/15 Board/Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date November 24, 2014 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 Start of Meeting: 4:00 p.m. End of Meeting: 4:44 p.m. Present Chair James Nishida; Vice Chair Jan TenBruggencate. Members: Ed Justus; Patrick Stack; Carol Suzawa Also: Deputy County Attorney Adam Roversi; Boards & Commissions Office Staff. Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Paula Morikami Excused Members: Mary Lou Barela; Joel Guy Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair Nishida called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm with 5 Commissioners present which constitutes a quorum Approval of Regularpen Session Minutes of October 27, 2014 Mr. TenBruggencate moved to approve the Minutes minutes as circulated. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Business CRC 2014-13 Review and discussion of the final results of the 2014 Charter Amendments Mr. Justus asked to comment on observations heard from other people as well as thoughts of his own. Someone pointed out the second ballot question regarding publishing of summaries that perhaps it would have been more honest if we had said we were changing it from publishing the entire thing to publishing just the summaries and putting it online; we should look at this in the future to be as clear as we possibly can. Mr. TenBruggencate said he was not sure there was an honesty issue; you can assume from the ballot question the amendment was about summaries as opposed to the complete text. Mr. Justus also said a lot of people asked him what happened to the voter education like we did in 2012 such as Hoike. Mr. TenBruggencate said the year before when he was the Chair he did talk about the amendments on the Charter Review Commission Open Session November 24, 2014 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mayor's show. Staff also said in 2012 there were multiple questions, which were thought might be confusing so Mr. Stack and Mr. Guy explained the Commission's amendments, along with Ms. Yukimura who explained the Council amendments on the Mayor's show. Staff further explained a voter education piece was done this year and distributed to libraries, neighborhood centers, emailed to organizational groups, etc. Mr. Justus thought taping the 2016 ballot questions for the Mayor's show would be helpful. People also approached Mr. Justus about the Pros and Cons of each of the amendments being presented. Mr. TenBruggencate said they have had conversations about that and one of the issues is that it is often housekeeping issues such as this year's amendments and you would have to work hard to come up with a "Con" which was not contrived. There is no particular "Con"; it is just should you do it or should you not do it so we dispensed with that. (File note on Pros and Cons: during the taping in 2012 Mr. Stack also explained the Commission proposes amendments deemed necessary or desirable so the thinking is why would we provide an opposing Mr. TenBruggencate moved to receive the reason that does not favor the amendment?) communication. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 CRC 2013-03 Review of Recommendations in Ramseyer form from legal analyst Curtis Shiramizu on identifying and proposing non -substantive corrections and revisions to the Kauai County Charter for Articles XXIV through XXXII (On -goings Continue to defer until Staff has completed their review. CRC 2014-05 Discussion and possible decision -making on whether a footnote is required to clarify subsections B. and C. of Section 26.04. Status of Departments and Transfer of Funds Defer pending receipt of the Coqpy Attorne 's opinion) Deferred CRC 2014-06 Discussion on whether there is a need to define what a charter amendment is a. Add a preamble or an additional paragraph to section 1.01 (Defer pendingreceipt eceipt of County Attorney's opinion as to whether the Preamble to the Charter was adopted by the people in 1968 and why it does not show up in Charter Review Commission Open Session November 24, 2014 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION subsequent documents) b. October 27 revision of proposal to Article XXIV by Commissioner Justus clarif�g what constitutes a charter amendment C. Request for Legal Review for Section 24.01, Initiation of Amendments (Defer pending receipt of the County Attorney's Opinion) d. Charter Amendment Petition Guidelines & Exhibits; Instructions for Voter Amendments Item b.: Mr. Justus stated that in place of the full packet on charter amendment changes he is now presenting what would be the most substantive of changes and would address the critical issue. The language mirrors the language in the final court ruling of the 2004 `Ghana amendment. To make it critically clear why it is important to have something in the Charter that defines what a charter amendment is Mr. Justus pointed out he has a copy from the appellate court that made that final decision, and he then read excerpts from that document. What this means according to our Charter is anything is a valid Charter amendment, but only the courts have the power to decide its validity or invalidity. Had there been a clause in the Charter that says it must relate to the form and structure of County government, the most recent petition would not have been able to be presented. That would be a way to match what the law says with the Charter and avoid lawsuits. Chair Nishida clarified that §24.04 would be an addition. To eliminate confusion regarding charter created departments that were not initially established by adoption of the charter, Mr. Justus said that portion could be eliminated. Mr. TenBruggencate suggested adding additional language from the court ruling saying "it is not a vehicle through which to adopt local legislation" to avoid overriding the County Council. Section 24.04 to read: Substance of Amendments. Any amendment to the Mr. Justus moved to adopt the language. Mr. Charter Review Commission Open Session November 24, 2014 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION charter is limited in substance to amending the form or structure of county TenBruggencate seconded the motion. government. It is not a vehicle through which to adopt local legislation. Motion carried 5:0 The revised proposed amendment will be sent for legal review. Item d.: While Chair Nishida and Ms. Suzawa thought the information given to petitioners was pretty thorough Mr. Justus questioned if the list of definitions were established by the County Clerk's Office, or the County Code because it is not in the Charter. Mr. TenBruggencate suggested the County Clerk's Office, which runs the elections division, probably came up with the explanations for terms that might not be clear in the fact sheet. Mr. TenBruggencate further suggested that the identifiers for voters appear to be the same as what is used by the State Elections Office. Mr. Justus questioned if it would be beneficial for the Commission to examine a potential charter amendment for clarifying the process for charter amendment petitions. Mr. TenBruggencate did not think that was the Commission's function and asked Mr. Justus what he thought was not adequate. Mr. TenBruggencate said he did not want to be a solution looking for a problem. Mr. Justus pointed out that what happens after filing is not defined once given the valid number of signatures. He stated there was no mention for procedures after filing, supplementary petitions, or even withdrawal of petitions. Mr. TenBruggencate said it is important to recognize what the document is, and it is what is given to the petitioners so they understand how to prepare a valid petition; it is not the document the County refers to on how to process a petition. Mr. Justus noted there is nothing in the Charter about timeliness, and how long it takes to make sure the signatures are valid once the petition has been given to the Clerk's office. Mr. TenBruggencate said the office has a set of guidelines and maybe that is what the Commission should be asking for. Charter Review Commission Open Session November 24, 2014 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Staff asked if the Commission would like to invite the County Clerk and the Elections Officer to address these questions before considering making changes. Ms. Suzawa agreed the Article on Initiatives and Referendums has more instructions on filing whereby it appears there is not that much to do to file a Charter amendment. It would be good to ask the County Clerk how much is necessary to file under the Charter, and what may be needed to match it with Referendums. Chair Nishida thought the big reason for filing as a Charter amendment was the difference with the percentage of signatures required. Ms. Suzawa agreed that the percentages should be the same for Charter amendments and Initiatives and Referendum. Mr. Justus added that even if the percentages are the same, voters will try to go the Charter route as the requirements are simpler. Chair Nishida said the Initiative and Referendum is more involved in that it actually changes law whereby the Charter is more general Chair Nishida requested an agenda item for the in how the government functions. next meeting in which Staff invites the County Clerk and Elections Officer to discuss instructions given to the public to initiate Charter amendments. Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, January 26, 2015, 4:00 p.m. Adjournment Mr. Justus moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:44 p.m. Mr. TenBruggencate seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Submitted by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Reviewed and Approved by: James Nishida, Jr., Chair