Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_0824_AgendaPacketJan TenBruggencate Members: Chair Merilee (Mia) Ako Ed Justus Allan Parachini Joel Guy Patrick Stack Vice Chair Cheryl Stiglmeier COUNTY OF KAUAI CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA Monday, August 24, 2015 4:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B 4444 Rice Street, Lihu'e, HI 96766 CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Open Session Minutes of July 27, 2015 BUSINESS CRC 2015 -02 Update from Staff on status of County Clerk's Office verifying accuracy of 2014 Codified Charter for certification for continued Charter Commission's identifying and proposing non- substantive changes to the Charter CRC 2015 -03 Chairman's report and discussion on the status of the preamble CRC 2015 -04 Discussion on whether to solicit input from the Mayor, County Council and Department Heads asking them to review their portions of the Charter and to report back to the Commission 0 CRC 2015 -04 Discussion and possible decision- making on a ballot question regarding changing the percentage of required voters to 10 %- 10 % -10 %: a. Charter Amendment, Article XXIV, Section 24.01 B b. Initiative and Referendum, Article XXII, Section 22.03 C ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Meeting: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 4:00 pm in the Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §92 -7(a), the Commission may, when executive session on any agenda item without written public notice if the anticipated in advance. Any such executive session shall be held pursuant limited to those items described in HRS §92 -5(a). Discussions held in Exec the public. An Equal Opportunity Employer deemed necessary, hold an executive session was not to HRS §92 -4 and shall be :utive Session are closed to Cc: Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza PUBLIC COMMENTS and TESTIMONY Persons wishing to offer comments are encouraged to submit written testimony at least 24 -hours prior to the meeting indicating: 1. Your name and if applicable, your position/title and organization you are representing; 2. The agenda item that you are providing comments on; and 3. Whether you will be testifying in person or submitting written comments only; and 4. If you are unable to submit your testimony at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, please provide 10 copies of your written testimony at the meeting clearly indicating the name of the testifier; and C5. If testimony is based on a proposed Charter amendment, list the applicable Charter provision. While every effort will be made to copy, organize, and collate all testimony received, materials received on the day of the meeting or improperly identified may be distributed to the members after the meeting is concluded. The Charter Commission rules limit the length of time allocated to persons wishing to present verbal testimony to five (5) minutes. A speaker's time may be limited to three (3) minutes if, in the discretion of the chairperson or presiding member, such limitation is necessary to accommodate all persons desiring to address the Commission at the meeting. Send written testimony to: Charter Review Commission Attn: Barbara Davis Office of Boards and Commissions 4444 Rice Street, Suite 150 L-1hu`e, HI 96766 E-mail :bdavis(&kauai.aov Phone: (808) 241 -4919 Fax: (808) 241 -5127 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE If you need an alternate format or an auxiliary aid to participate, please contact the Boards and Commissions Support Clerk at (808) 241 -4919 at least five (5) working days prior to the meeting. Charter Review Commission — May 18, 2015 2 1 P a g e COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Committee: I CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date I July 27, 2015 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B Start of Meeting: 4:05 pm End of Meeting: 5:16 pm Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate. Members: Mia Ako; Ed Justus; Allan Parachini; Patrick Stack Also: Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza; Boards & Commissions Office Staff. Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Jay Furfaro; County Clerk Jade Fountain - Tanigawa; Elections Administrator Lyndon Yoshioka Excused Vice Chair Joel Guy; Member Cheryl Stiglmeier Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Prior to the start of the meeting County Clerk Jade Fountain - Tanigawa gave the Oath of Office to new Commission member Merilee Mia Ako. Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with 5 Commissioners present. Chair TenBruggencate thanked Ms. Ako in advance for her service. Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of June 22, 2015 Minutes Following discussion of what may have been intended with some of the comments attributed to Commissioners there were no changes to the minutes. Mr. Justus moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Ms. Ako seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Business ,DQ CRC 2014 -06 Discussion and possible decision-making on n the percentage of required voters for petition initiated amendments (On- going) S a. Charter Amendment, Article XXIV, Section 24.01 B (other language proposed in Section 24.01 approved 6/22/15) i� ipllnq vn Pop" Illy Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 2 C ) ou. SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair TenBruggencate explained that Attorney Dureza has opined that the Commission can address initiative and referendum and charter amendment percentages in a single charter amendment. Previous information the Commission had been given was that you could not combine them; they had to be separate units. Mr. Justus questioned the language in the packet showing all the proposed language from the prior month's proposal regarding defining a charter amendment and the county clerk issues, but noticed in that same language there is a raising from 5 % to 10 %. He questioned if this was all being lumped together or was it a mistake having all that language in there. Staff explained that the language (defining a charter amendment and the county clerk issues) was approved previously, but the agenda item is to discuss only Section 24.01 B which addresses the percentage. Following all proposed changes, the Article in its entirety will be sent to the Attorney's Office for approval as to form and legality. If ballot question(s) have not yet been proposed they can be included before the Article is sent for review. Chair TenBruggencate said the suggestion at this point is that initiative, referendum and charter amendments would all be at 10 %. Mr. Stack affirmed what the Chair was talking about in which they would increase the percentage from 5% to 10% for charter amendments, and while he is not in any way for that he understands a compromise is called for now. Mr. Parachini moved to approve changing the percentages to 10- 10 -10. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Ms. Ako said before she can vote she needs to be clear on the difference between an amendment and referendum. Chair TenBruggencate said there are four places in the charter where a citizen can petition to change something about County government and one of them is a County charter amendment which changes the fundamental form of government. As it n Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 3 ( ) SUBJECT I DISCUSSION I ACTION currently stands that requires the signatures of 5% of the registered voters. To pass an initiative, which is an ordinance to go to the voters to pass a law, requires 20 %. To repeal a law, which is the referendum, takes 20 %. To recall an elected official takes 20% as the charter currently stands. The discussion has been in large part about whether it is appropriate that it be so much more difficult in the number of signatures you have to raise to simply pass an ordinance than to change the form of government. After a couple of years of discussion, the Commission is now at the point of suggesting all three percentages be made the same, 10 %, so people will be less likely perhaps to select the easier one even if it is not the appropriate one for what they are trying to accomplish. Mr. Justus said his perspective has always been that just raising percentages without establishing stricter criteria as to what constitutes a charter amendment would not solve anything. Mr. Justus said he was more in favor of changing the percentages to make them all equal. Ms. Ako said she was just trying to understand how this Commission came up with the percentages they are proposing. Mr. Justus said when the charter was originally written it did not include initiative or referendum and it only specified 5% as the number for creating an amendment. In the `70s when they realized they needed initiative and referendum there was a charter amendment that made those percentages 20 %, but they did not alter the 5% for charter amendments. Because it only takes 5% to change something in the charter people were trying to use that as a vehicle, so in making them all equal there is not an easier route. Mr. Justus said he was against it because he did not feel that completely resolved the issue, but the 10% number is trying to find a balance on where we can make all of these avenues for the public equal instead of trying to raise all of it to 20 %, which he opposes, or bringing them all down to 5% which seems too low. Mr. Parachini thought Mr. Stack was quite correct when he said it is a Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 n n SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION compromise. It is a compromise on a signature requirement that we could reach consensus on. What is the logic behind 10 %, as opposed to 11 % or 9 %, it is strictly finding language on which the Commission could reach consensus. Mr. Parachini said he was happy with where they ended up, and something can be presented to the voters that moves the system along and improves it. Ms. Ako said she was asking because voters are going to want to know how the Commission came up with that number of 10 %. Chair TenBruggencate said the impetus for this is that on multiple occasions people who have sought to make changes in government have selected the vehicle of a charter amendment because it only required 5 %. The Courts and the County Council have told these people they are using the wrong vehicle, and have therefore been thrown out by the Courts and the Council. The Commission's main goal was to not put people in that situation and we have found an equilibrium with 10 %. Mr. Justus thought that 10% was high enough that it makes anyone's efforts credible and low enough to still make it accessible. Chair TenBruggencate explained this was not the final shot as when the Commission has finished with this it is sent to the County Attorney's Office for review, and then it comes back to the Commission at which time the Commission could kill the proposal at a future meeting. Motion to increase the percentage required for a charter amendment to 10 % from 5 % carried 5:0 Motion to reduce the percentage required for initiative and referendum from 20% to 10 % carried 5:0 CRC 2015 -01 Discussion and possible decision - making on proposed changes to Article XXVII Recall: Section 27.01 Recall Procedure, Section 27.03 Si atures Section 27.06 Recall Election and Section 27.09 Immuni1y to Recall Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 EM 01 0 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair TenBruggencate invited Ms. Fountain - Tanigawa and Mr. Yoshioka to provide comments on Mr. Parachini's proposed changes to Article XXVII. But first Mr. Parachini was asked to present a summary of his proposal. Mr. Parachini stated there are nine elected officials in Kauai County, but the way the charter is currently worded only two of them are subject to recall. As a matter of equity, Mr. Parachini thought that all elected officials should be equally exposed to recall. This is not designed to pertain to any particular current County councilmember, and no current member would be subject to this since it would not appear on the ballot until 2016. It is just a matter of cleaning up the equity element of the charter in which if you are elected there is a single way to be recalled, and everyone is subject to the same action. Chair TenBruggencate provided background noting that the prosecuting attorney and the mayor serve a four -year term whereby the county council is currently exempted from recall because of specific language in the charter that recall does not apply to those elected to a two year term. Mr. Parachini is suggesting that recall apply even in the case of a two year term with language that would require a special election by all= mail and the County Clerk's Office indicated they have concerns about this. Mr. Yoshioka said the biggest portion of the amendment that will cause the greatest concern is the reduction in the timeline by which the election would need to be conducted. The amendment would require the Elections Office to conduct an election not less than 30 days, nor more than 45 days, after the election has been presented. This presents concerns and issues with that timeline because there is not a voting system. contract in place. The voting system contract that is currently in place is with the State so we would have to go through the procurement process to get the system. There would also Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 0. c� SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION be a problem with getting a sufficient supply of envelopes produced. The envelopes are special ordered and are ordered in excess of 45,000 to 47,000 for each election. Through the normal procurement process it takes about 3 weeks to get the bid out and award the bid. The contractors take about a month and a half to two months to get the envelopes produced and sent to us. The contractor that has won the bid over the past several elections is based out of Washington state. There are no vendors in Hawaii that can produce the quantities and sizes of envelopes that we need and have them personalized in time to conduct this election in the time specified. Mr. Parachini stated he was very sympathetic to the Elections Office's concerns noting it was not his intention to cause any difficulty. He said he was open to reframing the proposal in a way the wording comports with what the Elections Office can live with. Mr. Parachini said he also thought they might want to talk about the social security number issue and he surrenders to what the Elections Office's needs are. Mr. Yoshioka said Ms. Fountain- Tanigawa, Mr. Sato and he have discussed this at various times over the past several months and they understand the sensitivity regarding that particular personal bit of information. They have looked at other means for verifying petitions, however what they have found is unproven. But as part of a different project they will be looking at this closely. Intelligent character recognition software is one area being looked at, but there are a lot of questions that have to be answered with cost being one, accuracy of the read and match is another. It is not totally impossible to do; it would just take longer to process the petitions without that identifier. At this point the only way to get it down to the timeline that might be suitable for the ten day window needed to process would be to add staffing and work as many hours as necessary to hit the deadline. Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 7 l� ) SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Parachini said he would be very open to modifying the proposed language in a way that makes it something the Elections Office can do without killing itself. If they would like to suggest specific language he would happily defer to their judgement on that. Mr. Yoshioka thanked him saying they appreciate the opportunity, and asked when the alternate language would be needed. Chair TenBruggencate said with the two year term it is Mr. Parachini's suggestion that a recall would not happen within the first 6 months of that term, which leaves about 1 year before they are in election season where people are actively campaigning. Effectively, there is 1 year between the 6 months at the beginning and the 6 months at the end during which you would want to potentially do a recall. Mr. Parachini pointed out that the proposal changes the 6 months to 3 months for that very reason. Chair TenBruggencate asked if a candidate has time to exhibit sufficient mis /mal/nonfeasance to be recalled after just 3 months. As you move between the 3 months at the beginning of the term and the 6 months at the end of the term when they are campaigning for election do you want to have another election within that period. The question is what is a reasonable number for the Clerk's Office? It is 3 weeks for procurement, 1 'f2 to 2 months to produce and deliver the envelopes which brings you to around 10 weeks and the envelopes have not been mailed out yet, and that could take it up to 12 to 14 weeks. Mr. Yoshioka said he had not looked at a timeline yet, but wanted to add that even though this pertains to County business there are Federal mailing deadlines to adhere to regardless of whether it involves a Federal contest or not. That requires sending ballots out to overseas voters 45 days prior to the election, so the Elections Office would have to carefully look at all the timelines. Mr. Yoshioka said they could provide the Commission with a ballpark timeline factoring in the procurement of the envelopes, the voting machines, and the mailing (7) (00mo) Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 8 SUBJECT I DISCUSSION I ACTION deadlines, etc. Chair TenBruggencate said while they are considering an all -mail election, are there other options for holding an election that does not rely on the postal service, for example electronic. A lot of this has to do with shuffling paper and do we need to shuffle paper? Mr. Yoshioka thought neighborhood boards did their elections online, but the fact that this is an official governmental election he would not recommend going in that type of voting technology. It may be okay for corporate board elections, but he would not feel comfortable going that route based on the significance of what they are attempting to determine. Also, Mr. Yoshioka said he does not know of any electronic internet type of voting system that has passed Federal certification. Mr. Parachini asked if the Elections Office was able to solicit bids on a contingency basis; could they go out for a bid essentially "if' we need this what is your price. Mr. Yoshioka said he would need to check with procurement. Chair TenBruggencate said given the compressed timeline there is another option, which is to remove the two year term language and to allow a recall to be held as a special election during the regularly scheduled primary. What that would accomplish is that if someone was sufficiently unpopular enough that you wanted to get rid of them you would remove them for the last 3 or 4 months of their term, but they could still be a candidate the next time and the voters could put them back in or not. Instead of holding a special election on a separate day, any recall that occurs during the two year term is voted on at the next primary election. Mr. Yoshioka said that would address a lot of his issues. Mr. Parachini said that would make the recall process more symbolic than anything. He still thought all elected officials need to have the same exposure to recall. Ms. Ako had the impression that the Commission was in agreement to place all nine elected officials into the recall system rather than just the two in the charter to which Chair TenBruggencate said they had not agreed on that; the Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Commission was still in discussion. The Commission is in the process of saying if we want to do this how would it work. Mr. Stack asked if there was not a mechanism within Council that they could take care of their wayward friends. Mr. Furfaro said there was, but he would prefer the County Clerk expand on that.. Ms. Fountain - Tanigawa cited §3.07 D which states The council may, upon an affirmative vote of at least two- thirds of its entire membership, suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence. The presiding officer or the council by a majority vote may expel any other person who is guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or improper conduct at any meeting. Chair TenBruggencate said within the charter is the impeachment provision which requires just 5% of the voters registered in the last election to file an impeachment petition, and it is different from recall in that if an impeachment petition is brought and found to be sufficient the issue goes to court where it needs to be proved that the person sought to be impeached has conducted himself in a way that shows misfeasance, nonfeasance or malfeasance. Mr. Stack said that demonstrated why Mr. Parachini's procedure does not work. The candidate for expulsion only has a 2 year term in office and through legal maneuvers the process can be delayed with the 2 years coming and going long before any legal action is taken. So not to minimize the importance of what is being said it is not as effective as impeachment because impeachment takes two - thirds majority of the Council. Chair TenBruggencate pointed out that impeachment takes a 5% petition from the voters and then it goes to court. Mr. Furfaro clarified to expel someone the Council needs a super majority of 4 of the 6 remaining members. Mr. Justus said he did not understand that because it states they can expel any other person who is guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or improper conduct at any meeting. Does that mean any other person other than Council people? Chair TenBruggencate said yes; if he were to go to Council and become abusive the Chairman of the Council has the authority with the vote of a Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 10 n 0 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION majority of the Council to kick him out. They can also do that if a member of the Council behaves in that way. Mr. Justus thought the section said Council could only suspend their pay for a month. Mr. Parachini said the Chairman raises issues about the practical elements of implementing a system of this nature and he is prepared to fold on this issue. Mr. Justus thought there was merit in some of what Mr. Parachini was saying and he should not scrap the whole thing. Mr. Justus also understood the County Clerk's Office on the timelines for procurement and all, and could leave that section alone, but he is still interested in the discussion of lowering the percentage rate of recall. There is also interesting conversation to be had about lowering it from 4 year terms to regardless of length because the public should have the ability to have a say on every elected official, so he is not sure if recall is the way or impeachment. Ms. Ako said she agreed with Mr. Justus. Mr. Parachini moved to approve the proposed language for Article XXVH for discussion purposes. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Ms. Ako thought this was a way for the public to feel some form of empowerment, but there are some glitches in the article. Ms. Ako would like to see discussion continue on this article, in particular section 27.01 and do they change it from 2 elected four year officials to 9 which includes all elected officials. Mr. Justus thinks in some sense even if it is never used just the fact that recall could be an option on any official, with that in the back of their mind it might keep them on their toes. Mr. Furfaro said just having it there as an opportunity is a pretty strange approach to having people do business in a 2 year term, which they can only actively participate in for about 18 months because then they are on the campaign trail again. If someone upsets the body enough that it would call for impeachment they will probably run a very shallow re- election campaign. A caution right now because our rules are on the edge. This piece started with calling up the Clerk's Office and the Elections Office to Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page I I O (7) SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION get an understanding of what concerns they would have on a procedure for which there was no motion made, but now the Commission is in discussion. The Commission needs to consider if you are doing this for a 2 year term how do you fill the position of the guy who gets recalled, and what is the cost associated with a removal when you have reprimand and the ability with in the Council body to have some removed under 3.07 and 23.13. There are a lot of personal challenges that it puts on the division of Elections, as well as the fact there is not a full time elections staff. The elections in the County of Kaua` i are run by as many as 6 part-timers that are called back that actually run the posts; there are a lot of mechanical parts there for 18 months of activity. Mr. Parachini asked about language in the charter that establishes a procedure for filling an unfilled term. Mr. Furfaro said it is not defined definitely where automatically the 81` voter gets in. Staff added however there is a procedure for filling the mayor's position. Mr. Furfaro then explained the procedure that applies in the appointment of a councilmember. Chair TenBruggencate added there is a provision for the Council to select the next person, but it does not tell the Council how to do it. Chair TenBruggencate said there were other things in the proposal such as the issue of whether a social security number should be included when signatures (on a petition) are collected. Mr. Parachini's language, as proposed, is that social security numbers not be collected as a privacy issue, but there are concerns on the part of the Elections Office on whether they can expeditiously check signatures for their validity in the absence of an additional identifier such as a social security number. Asked about confirming signatures using social security numbers Mr. Yoshioka said that is the most efficient way to access the individual's record in the voter file. Asked if it would work just as well to list only the last 4 digits of the social security number, which would help ensure privacy on the part of the voter, Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 12 n SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Yoshioka said it would not allow a search of the vote file as quickly because even with only 40,000 or so registered voters in Kauai County there are numerous duplicate 4 digits in the last portion of a SSN. Without the full 9 digits Elections would have to do a name search, which increases the number of keystrokes required to access the record. Even with the name search if you do not hit that individual's record, but rather a list of names, you would have to scroll through to find the record that you are searching for, and open it up to find the corresponding documents. It would double or triple the amount of time to access 1 record. Chair TenBruggencate said another item to be addressed is who has access to the voter list because inherent in Mr. Justus' question was that almost anyone could go look at a voter record. Mr. Justus said he did not mean a voter record, but rather the petition itself to which Mr. Yoshioka said that is a possibility. Mr. Justus thought that was a measure that needed to be corrected as it is a huge problem in this day of identity theft, and could be a really big problem if someone decided to do a phony recall election. Ms. Ako said this is turning into the rabbit's hole because in an election, whether you want to run or not, the list of names of the people putting their name for you to run is with a social security number. If someone chooses not to put their social security number that is their prerogative, but everything having to do with the elections if you put your name to it when you go to vote it is your social security number. Sorry but to ask to change that is the rabbit hole. Mr. Yoshioka said they are looking at intelligent character recognition, and applications to try to establish alternative ways to verify petitions, but it is just in the research stages. Ms. Ako stated that our elections are part of the State Elections; if the State Elections is going to make changes and go with recognition then we are good. But to ask our County to go into this, how are we going to fund this. Mr. Justus said Ms. Ako makes a good point because it is not something the Charter Commission can fix; it would probably have to be something at a higher State level to address those Charter Review Commission Open Session July 27, 2015 Page 13 0 0 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION potential security issues. Chair TenBruggencate said he was pleased that the Elections Office, on its own initiative, is looking for solutions to this problem because he does not think the Commission can dictate those solutions. Mr. Stack thought Ms. Ako was right on target; they do not want to take something that isn't a problem and make it a problem, or put too much light on something that is insignificant. A recall is something that would only happen if some elected official did some really heinous thing, which might fall under the heading of criminal and not civil. Chair TenBruggencate's view was that until such time as Council is a 4 year term this is a problematic issue of which he will not be supporting. Mr. Parachini withdrew his motion. Asked why Mr. Parachini dropped the percentage from 20 % to 10% the response was for consistency with the other proposals. Mr. Justus said in this instance he thought 20% was a good number. Mr. Justus withdrew his second. Mr. Justus moved to receive CRC 2015 -01. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 :0 Announcements Next meeting: Monday, August 24, 2015 —4:00 p.m. Adjournment Chair TenBruggencate adjourned the meeting at 5:16 p.m. Submitted by. Barbara Davis, Support Clerk () Approved as circulated. () Approved with amendments. See minutes of Reviewed and Approved by. meeting. Jan TenBruggencate, Chair Proposing a Charter Amendment to Article XVIV Relating to defining a Charter Amendment, the procedure for receiving a petition and increasing the percentage of required registered voters Findings and Purpose. Charter Amendment. Article XVIV of the Kauai County Charter is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE XXIV l CHARTER AMENDMENT Section 24.01. [Initiatlen ef Afftendments.]Initiation and substance of amendments. Any amendment to this charter is limited in substance to amending the form or structure of count Government. It is not a vehicle through which to adopt local legislation. Amendments to this charter may be initiated only in the following manner. A. By resolution of the county council adopted after two readings on separate days and passed by a vote of five or more members of the council. Be By petition [presented to the ;' ] filed with the C county clerk, signed by registered voters comprising not less than [five- peEeent ten percent (10 %) of the number of voters registered in the last general election, setting forth the proposed amendments. Such petitions shall designate and authorize not less than three nor more than five of the signers thereto to approve any alteration or change in the form or language or any restatement of the text of the proposed amendments which may be [made] suggested by the county attorney. (Amended 2012) Upon filing of such petition [wlth the— eeunel=], the county clerk shall examine it to see whether it is a valid charter amendment. If the county clerk concludes the measure is a valid charter amendment, the clerk shall then examine it to see whether it contains a sufficient number of valid signatures of registered voters. (Amended 2012) If the county clerk concludes the measure is not a valid charter amendment, the county clerk shall so certify and provide the reasoning for that ruling. Section 24.02. Elections to be Called. A. Any resolution of the council or valid petition of the voters proposing amendments to the charter shall provide that the proposed amendments shall be submitted to the voters of the county at the next general election. B. The county clerk shall have summaries of the proposed amendments published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county and the entire text published by electronic or online publication on the official website of the County of Kauai at least thirty (30) days prior to submission of the. proposed amendments to the voters of the county at the next general election. (Amended 2014) C. Should the majority of the voters voting thereon approve the proposed amendments to this charter, the amendments shall become effective at the time fixed in the amendment, or, if no time is fixed therein, thirty (30) days after its adoption by the voters of the county. Summaries of any charter amendment shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county and the entire text published by electronic or online publication on the official website of the County of Kauai within thirty (30) days of the effective date of such amendment. (Amended 2014) Section 24.03. Charter Review. The mayor with the approval of the council shall appoint, with appropriate staffing, a charter commission composed of seven members who shall serve in accordance with Section 23.02C of this Charter to study and review the operation of the county government under this charter for a period of ten years commencing in 2007. Thereafter, the mayor with the approval of the council shall appoint a charter commission at ten year intervals. In the event the commission deems changes are necessary or desirable, the commission may propose amendments to the existing charter or draft a new charter which shall be submitted to the county clerk. The county clerk shall provide for the submission of such amendments or new charter to the voters at any general or special election as may be determined by the commission. The commission shall publish summaries of any such amendments or new charter not less than thirty (30) days before any election at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the county and the entire text of the amendments or new charter by electronic or online publication on the official website of the County of Kauai. (Amended 2014) A. Unless a new charter is submitted to the voters, each amendment to the charter shall be voted on separately. B. If a majority of the voters voting upon a charter amendment votes in favor of it or a new charter, if a new charter is proposed, the amendment or new charter shall become effective at the time fixed in the amendment or charter, or if no time is fixed, thirty (30) days after its adoption by the voters. Summaries of any new charter or amendment shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the county, and the entire text published by electronic or online publication on the official website of the County of Kauai not more than thirty (30) days after its adoption. (Amended 2014) 0 0 Note: Charter material to be repealed is bracketed. New charter material is underscored. AM Ballot Questions Shall it be clarified what constitutes a charter amendment and shall the processing of proposed petition charter amendments also be clarified? Ballot Question: (changing all the percentages of registered voters) Amended 072715 Proposing a Charter Amendment to Article XXII relating to reducing the percentage of required voters for a petition or referendum petition Findings and Purpose. Charter Amendment, Article XXII of the Kauai County Charter is amended to read as follows. ARTICLE XXII INITIATIVE AND REF7 Section 22.01. Power of Initiative and Referendum. A. The power of voters to propose ordinances (except as provided in Section 22.02) shall be the initiative power. CB. The power of the voters to approve or reject ordinances that have been passed by the county council (except as provided in Section 22.02) shall be the referendum power. (Amended 1976) Section 22.02. Limitations to Powers. The initiative power and the referendum power shall not extend to any part or all of the operating budget or capital budget; any financial matter relating to public works; any ordinance authorizing or repealing the levy of taxes; any emergency legislation; any ordinance making or repealing any appropriation of money or fixing the salaries of county employees or officers; any ordinance authorizing the appointment of employees; any ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds; or any matter covered under collective bargaining contracts. (Amended 1976) Section 22.03. Submission Reauirement. �,e/I aois A. Voters seeking to propose an ordinance by initiative shall submit an initiative petition addressed to the council and containing the full text of the proposed ordinance. The initiative petition shall be filed with the clerk of the council at least ninety -six (96) hours prior to any regular council committee meeting. B. Voters seeking referendum of an ordinance shall submit a referendum petition addressed to the council, identifying the particular ordinance and requesting that it be either repealed or referred to the voters of the county. C. Each initiative or each referendum petition must be signed by registered voters comprising not less than [twenty percent (20%) ] ten percent (100) of the number of voters registered in the last general election. D. If an initiative or referendum measure is to be placed on the ballot in a general election, the initiative and referendum petitions must be submitted not less than one hundred twenty (120) calendar days prior to the day scheduled for the general election in the county. (Amended 1976, 2012) Section 22.04. Committee. For each initiative or each referendum petition there shall be a petitioner's committee representing all the petitioners, which committee shall be composed of five (5) members who shall be qualified voters of the county and signers of the petition. The committee shall be responsible for circulation of the petition and for assembling and filing the petition in proper form. The committee shall have the power to amend or withdraw the Qpetition as provided by this article. (Amended 1976) Section 22.05. Initiative and Referendum Petition: Form and Sufficiency. A. For immediate acceptance of the petition, the clerk of the council shall require reasonable compliance with the following: (1) The petitions indicate by name and address, the five (5) signers who constitute the petitioner's committee for that petition. (2) The petitions indicate the address which all notices for petitioner's committee are to be sent. (3) The signatures to petitions be filed on papers of uniform size and style and assembled as one instrument. (5) The petition be signed by the required number of qualified registered voters of the county. B. Signatures are invalid and petitions insufficient: (1) If signers are not given an opportunity to read the full text of the ordinance sought to be reconsidered and if the full text of the ordinance is not contained in or attached to each signature paper or set of signature papers of an initiative or referendum petition throughout circulation. (2) If affidavits (executed by the circulators for each set of signature papers) are not attached to the papers at the time of filing of petitions with the clerk of the council. Each affidavit shall attest to the effect that: a particular individual personally circulated an identifiable set of papers; each paper bears a stated number of signatures; each signature on a paper was affixed in the circulator's presence; each signature is the genuine signature of the person it purports to be. C. Individual signatures may be withdrawn within fifteen (15) days after the filing of an initiative or referendum petition with the clerk of the council by the filing of a written request thereof', by the individual, with the clerk or the council. (Amended 1976) Section 22.06. Procedure After Filing. A. Certificate of Clerk; Amendment. Within twenty (20) days after the filing of an initiative or referendum petition, the clerk of the council shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition. As soon as a certificate is completed, the clerk shall notify the petitioner's committee of the contents of the certificate. If a petition is certified sufficient, the clerk shall present his certificate to the county council at its next meeting. If the clerk certifies a petition insufficient, his certificate shall show the particulars wherein the petition is defective. A majority of the petitioner's committee may elect to amend a petition certified insufficient and must so notify the clerk, but if a majority does not elect to amend a petition, the clerk shall present his certificate to the county council at its next meeting. B. Supplementary Petition. If a majority of the petitioner's (4) Each signature on the petition shall be followed by the name (printed) and the place of residence of the person signing. (5) The petition be signed by the required number of qualified registered voters of the county. B. Signatures are invalid and petitions insufficient: (1) If signers are not given an opportunity to read the full text of the ordinance sought to be reconsidered and if the full text of the ordinance is not contained in or attached to each signature paper or set of signature papers of an initiative or referendum petition throughout circulation. (2) If affidavits (executed by the circulators for each set of signature papers) are not attached to the papers at the time of filing of petitions with the clerk of the council. Each affidavit shall attest to the effect that: a particular individual personally circulated an identifiable set of papers; each paper bears a stated number of signatures; each signature on a paper was affixed in the circulator's presence; each signature is the genuine signature of the person it purports to be. C. Individual signatures may be withdrawn within fifteen (15) days after the filing of an initiative or referendum petition with the clerk of the council by the filing of a written request thereof', by the individual, with the clerk or the council. (Amended 1976) Section 22.06. Procedure After Filing. A. Certificate of Clerk; Amendment. Within twenty (20) days after the filing of an initiative or referendum petition, the clerk of the council shall complete a certificate as to the sufficiency of the petition. As soon as a certificate is completed, the clerk shall notify the petitioner's committee of the contents of the certificate. If a petition is certified sufficient, the clerk shall present his certificate to the county council at its next meeting. If the clerk certifies a petition insufficient, his certificate shall show the particulars wherein the petition is defective. A majority of the petitioner's committee may elect to amend a petition certified insufficient and must so notify the clerk, but if a majority does not elect to amend a petition, the clerk shall present his certificate to the county council at its next meeting. B. Supplementary Petition. If a majority of the petitioner's committee elects to amend its petition, then within ten (10) days after receipt of the clerk's certificate, the committee shall file a supplementary petition upon additional papers. The supplementary petition shall be governed by the same requirements as for an original petition. Within five (5) days after the filing of a supplementary petition, the clerk shall complete a second certificate as to the sufficiency of the original petition as amended by the supplementary petition. Thereafter, the procedural requirements for the petition as amended shall be the same as that for the original petition as provided in subsection A, this section. C. Council Review. A maj may request the county council or before the meeting at which to the council. The council certificate, upon the committ( reject the certificate or may sufficiency of the petition by ority of the petitioner's committee to review a clerk's certificate, at the clerk presents the certificate shall review the latest clerk's se's request, and shall approve or substitute its own determination of resolution. D. Court Review; New Petition. A final determination as to the sufficiency of a petition shall be subject to court review. A final determination of insufficiency, even if sustained upon court review, shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose. (Amended 1976) Section 22.07. Countv Council Action on Petitions. A. The county council shall proceed immediately to consider an initiative or referendum petition which has been determined sufficient in accordance with the provisions of this article. If an initiative petition is concerned, the ordinance it proposes shall at once be introduced subject to the procedures required for ordinances under Article IV of this charter; however, not more than sixty (60) days shall elapse between the time of first reading of the initiative proposal as a bill and completion of action to adopt, amend, or reject the same. If a referendum petition is concerned, the ordinance to which that petition is directed shall be reconsidered by the council; and not later than thirty (30) days after the date on which the petition was determined sufficient, the council shall, by ordinance, repeal, or, by resolution, sustain the ordinance. Be If passes it the council rejects an initiative amendment proposal with an amendment unacceptable to a majority of or the petitioner's committee, ordinance reconsidered submit the originally or if pursuant proposed the council fails to repeal to a referendum petition, it shall initiative ordinance or refer an the reconsidered ordinance concerned to the voters of the county at the next general election. C. The council may, in its discretion, and under appropriate circumstances, provide for a special election. D. The ballot for such measures shall contain an objective summary of the substance of the measure and shall have below the ballot title designated spaces in which to mark a ballot FOR or AGAINST the measure. Copies of initiative or referendum ordinances shall also be made available at the polls. E. Suspension of Ordinance. When a referendum petition or amended petition has been certified as sufficient by the County Clerk, the Ordinance sought to be repealed in the petition shall not be effective and shall be deemed suspended from the date the petition is certified as sufficient until the voters have voted on the measure and the election results have been certified as provided in this Article. (Amended 1976, 1980) Section 22.08. Withdrawal of Petitions. An initiative or referendum petition may be withdrawn at any time prior to the sixtieth (60th) day immediately preceding the day scheduled for a vote in the county by filing with the county clerk a request for withdrawal signed by at least four filing of the request, (4) members of the petitioners the petition shall have committee. Upon the no further force or effect and all 1976) proceedings thereon shall be terminated. (Amended Section 22.09. Results of Election. If a majority of the voters voting upon a proposed initiative ordinance shall vote in favor of it, the ordinance involved shall be considered adopted upon certification of the election results. If a majority of the voters voting upon a referendum ordinance shall vote against it, the ordinance involved shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. (Amended 1976) Section 22.10. Upon approval by a majority of the votes cast on the proposal, the charter amendment shall take effect upon all legislative acts not excluded herein enacted after January 2, 1977. (Amended 1976) Section 22.11. A referendum that nullifies an existing ordinance shall not affect any vested right or any action taken or expenditures made up to the date of the referendum. (Amended 1976) DI O Note: Charter material to be repealed is bracketed. New charter material is underscored. Ballot Question: (Incorporate with Article XXIV) Revised 072715 J i