Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_1123_AgendaPacketJan TenBruggencate Members: Chair Merilee (Mia) Ako Ed Justus Allan Parachini Joel Guy Patrick Stack Vice Chair Cheryl Stiglmeier _ , -..1..-....T , - -i� NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA Monday, November 23, 2015 4:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A /B 4444 Rice Street, Uhu'e, HI 96766 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Open Session Minutes of October 26, 2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § §92 -4 and 92 -5(a) (4), the Commission anticipates convening in Executive Session to consult with its legal counsel on issues pertaining to the Commission's and the County's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and /or liabilities as they may relate to the following Attorney- Client Communication and /or Attorney Work Product. ES -008 Confidential opinion dated October 30, 2015 from Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza offering legal guidance as to the legality and compliance of the proposed charter amendment to the Kauai County Charter Articles XXII and XXIV ES -009 Confidential opinion dated October 30, 2015 from Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza offering legal guidance as to the legality and compliance of the proposed charter amendment to the Kauai County Cbarter Article III, Section 3.07 D RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Ratify Commission actions taken in Executive Session for items: ES -008 and ES -009 BUSINESS CRC 2015 -02 Staff update 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 (On- going) CRC 2015 -03 Chairman's update on the status of the preamble (On- going) CRC 2015 -04 Memorandum dated 8/27/15 soliciting 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 for consideration of any changes desired (On- going) An Equal Opportunity Employer a. Proposed amendment to Article XII, Fire Department, from Fire Chief Robert Westerman CRC 2015 -13 Scope and authority of a Special Committee to determine the best council districting plan and present a specific proposal for consideration a. Overview of the findings and recommendations of the Special Committee on County Districting to the Charter Review Commission, pursuant to HRS §92 -2.5, for discussion and possible decision - making by the Commission as a whole at its December 21, 2015, or a later meeting. CRC 2015 -14 Review, discussion and possible decision - making on a Charter Amendment Proposal for Articles XXII and XXIV as relates to the percentage of registered voter signatures for an initiative, a referendum and a proposed petition charter amendment and to enable the county clerk to determine whether the proposal is a valid charger amendment CRC 2015 -15 Review, discussion and possible decision - making on a Charter Amendment Proposal for Article III, Section 3.07 D as relates to Council's authority to expel one of its members for disorderly or contemptuous behavior CRC 2015 -16 Proposed amendment revising Section 24.03, Kauai County Charter, relating to establishing a permanent Charter Review Commission CRC 2015 -17 Timeline for 2016 Charter Amendments ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Meeting: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:00 pm in the Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B 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. Cc: Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza deemed necessary, hold an executive session was not to HRS §92 -4 and shall be ;utive Session are closed to 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 _ _ Charter Review Commission — November 23, 2015 2 P a g c 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 5. 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 Charter Review Commission Attn: Barbara Davis Office of Boards and Commissions 4444 Rice Street, Suite 150 Lihu`e, HI 96766 E- mail:bdavis�7rc ,kauai. ov 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 —November 23, 2015 3 P a e Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board /Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date October 26, 2015 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B Start of Meeting: 4:01 pm End of Meeting: 6:04 pm Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice Chair Joel Guy. Members: Mia Ako, Ed Justus; Allan Parachini (4:13 p.m.); Patrick Stack; Cheryl Stiglmeier Also: Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis Excused Absent f t t 0 4, ) 16 t Vl SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm with 6 Commissioners present Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of September 28, 2015 Ms. Stiglmeier moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Business CRC 2015 -02 Staffs update on status of County Clerk's Office verifying accuracy of 2014 Codified Charter for certification for continued Charter Commission's identif3jng and proposing non - substantive changes to the Charter (On-going) No update has been received from the County Clerk's Office Mr. Justus moved to defer to the next month. Ms. Stiglmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 1 CRC 2015 -03 Chairman's update on the status of the preamble (On -going) 's Chair TenBruggencate noted Ms. Fountain - Tanigawa, County Clerk, was not in the office today and so he does not have an update. Mr. Justus moved to defer to the next month. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 CRC 2015 -04 Memorandum dated 8/27/15 soliciting input from the Maw County Council and Department Heads asking them to review their portions of Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the Charter and to report back to the Commission for consideration of any changes desired (On- going) a. Letter dated 9/23/15 from the Department of Water indicating they have no recommendations at this time Mr. Justus moved to receive the letter from the Water Department. Mr. Guy seconded the )notion. b. Proposed amendment to Article XVIII, Civil Defense Agency, Motion carried 6:0 aligning this Article to the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Article 127A -5, by changing from Civil Defense Agency to Emergency Management Agency Chair TenBruggencate explained that the State has gone through the process of changing the name and some of the functions of its Office of Civil Defense, and turned it into an Emergency Management Agency to better recognize the fact that it is dealing with not only civil defense / homeland security types of issues but a lot of natural disasters. The civil defense terminology seems to suggest it only deals with attacks from without, so this would bring our County Civil Defense Office into concurrence with the language. There are no significant changes in the function of the office but it does change the tenninology. Mr. Guy made a motion to move this proposal forward. Ms. Ako seconded the motion. Mr. Stack asked if the naive change had any direct or indirect effect on the funding in the event of a national disaster. Chair TenBruggencate thought it should improve the capacity for funding because it puts Homeland Security at the Federal level, which is now in line with our State Office of Emergency Management; it would put this in direct line. Asked if there were any substantive changes other than the name, Chair TenBruggencate said that was his recollection. Mr. Justus said in Section 18.04 it says "each county" and should say "the county" since we do not have the authority to tell any other county what to Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION do. Mr. Justus moved to amend the language to change "each" to "the ". Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Mr. Justus questioned the amount of not less than $50,000 as a contingency fund, and questioned if they need to add a line that could be enclosed in parenthesis to say to be adjusted for inflation rather than adjusting that amount over the years. Staff pointed out the verbiage was "not less than" to which Mr. Guy said he got the sense that the Civil Defense is really in tune with what their budget constraints are, and would have made that recommendation if there was a concern. Chair TenBruggencate agreed that the $50,000 was not a limit, it just says not less than, so it could be any amount over that. Motion to approve the main motion as amended and forward for legal review carried 6:0 CRC 2015 -06 Discussion and possible decision - making on whether to pursue developing and placing an amendment on the ballot for Council Districting (Deferred from 9/28/15 meeting) a. Review of past districting election results Chair TenBruggencate noted they had received written testimony from Felecia Cowden and invited her to address the issue. Ms. Cowden noted this topic has come up a number of times and she did send in her suggestion. In the handout, extending the number of years has gone on the ballot a number of times and has been rejected; that is new and valuable information for her. Ms. Cowden does think there is some value in districting and thinks if 4 of the council positions were at -large that allows for a majority vote on any particular issue that is at- large. Turning that to a 4 year position would be a good thing and to have it be full time. She is conscious that many of the people have another job, and when you are only Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION elected for 2 years you might not want to give up your very serious job. This would allow for full time focus and we would have a much stronger Council. If there were 3 district positions that would work and flow as it is for the State Representatives (Districts 14, 15 and 16), it would be easy at the time of balloting. Those positions could be 2 years and at the same pay rate as now; more of a junior position, but they would have equal vote in everything else. That would allow for people coming in to get experience, and if they are not up for the job they would cycle out a little bit faster and would keep the costs down. When there are 4 at -large positions they would stagger with 2 elected each of the two years, so it allows for stability and continuity in the Council. Chair TenBruggencate noted the arrival of Mr. Parachini at 4:13 p.m. Mr. Guy expressed his appreciation for Ms. Cowden's well thought out testimony as it is invaluable when someone takes the time to give great information. Chair TenBruggencate noted they had a discussion of this at the last meeting, and one of the things that has come up in the past is the North Shore district has on two previous occasions been split and turned into a canoe district, which might be problematic. They might have to do a separate reapportionment for the Council so it is possible tying it to Representative districts might not be the most efficient way to accomplish what they are trying to do. Ms. Cowden said she suggested it just so it is easy in terms of how it is at the polling places. Mr. Parachini asked Ms. Cowden where she was on the issue of these at -large councihnembers being elected at -large or by the voters in the particular district. In other words, if they are elected at- large, in most models they have to live in the district but the countywide vote determines. Ms. Cowden felt that on an island with as small a population as 70,000 it is not inappropriate to have at- large. That is why making the 4 year term full time with some definition where they do Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 I' SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION not have a competing job so they are out and meeting in all the areas. The 4 year positions could live anywhere; the districted positions would need to live in their district. At -large is important because for an island this size in terms of population there are many decisions that do not matter what area you live in. Mr. Guy explained with the Maui model, there are 9 districts and you have to live in the district, but the whole island votes for every councilmember. On the Big Island they have to live in and are voted for only by those in that district. Mr. Justus said to be clear it is called districts at- large. Ms. Cowden said absolutely those in the east and north would vote for their east and north person, and only west side would vote for west side, only central would vote for central; otherwise they might as well all be at- large. Mr. Guy asked for more information on canoe districts to which Chair TenBruggencate explained that at one time Peter Apo represented Hanalei even though he was from Waianae. Kauai was too small for 3 full districts and too big for 2 districts so they took the North Shore in one redistricting year and connected it to Waianae. In another canoe district year we were connected to Maui. Asked how that would connect to the County Council Chair TenBruggencate said if we simply follow the Representative Districts and they canoe the Representative Districts in the future then there might be a situation where there is a councilmember from a very small part of the island. Attorney Dureza said he was informally asked to look into the canoe district situation which began around 1981. The Constitution actually forbids such things as canoe districts, but that was challenged in 1981 under the equal protection clause because you are supposed to have this principle where it is a fairly equal distribution among legislators and the constituents. What happens with that Constitutional provision that these certain island districts Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 I'._- SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION themselves should be kept intact was that it skewed the distribution of legislators per the amount of population they are supposed to represent. That was challenged in 1981 and stuck down as unconstitutional, and from that arose the canoe district situation. Since then, and one of the reasons they lost in 1981was at the time the State did not put forward its reasons why it had this policy of keeping certain districts with the 4 main island groupings and so the court ruled against them based on that. This was challenged again recently in 2013 and this time the State put forward their valid reasons based on the history of Hawaii and how especially since the 2 decades they experimented with the canoe districts how that did not work out so well. So the court upheld the constitutionality of keeping Kauai as that despite the fact that proportionately it was off. Going forward it will probably survive constitutional challenges based on that recent decision that the court upheld. It went up to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court did not pick it up and did not decide on the merits, but effectively it sort of went through the system. Mr. Justus asked if in turn that ruling would affect potentially how County districts might be arranged as opposed to one district might be a little bit larger in population than the other because of geographic differences. If the North Shore has 2,000 less people than all the other districts, in theory would that principle apply because of geographic or cultural differences? Attorney Dureza said yes, it would apply here so if it is applied to Kauai and Niihau then proportionately from every district it should be fairly equal and you can't sway that greatly. There is case law that says if the maximum difference is 10% from one district to the lowest district, then it is okay. But above that it becomes constitutionally suspect and you need to put forward a reason why there is such variation between our legislator and the number of the population the legislator represents. Chair TenBruggencate said his understanding is the way Maui County gets away with having a situation where some districts have 10 or more thousand people and Lanai only has 2,000 to 2,500 and they each get a Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION councilmember is by the fact that everybody gets to vote for everybody so no voters are disenfranchised by not being able to vote for an equal number of people. We have also had a lot of testimony from people saying they want to vote for 7 people. Mr. Guy agreed there was a lot of that testimony. Mr. Justus was appreciative of the discussion on the canoe districts because if the 3 districts match the State districts, but there is not a district apportionment committee because of costs to the County, his immediate concern was what if the State decides to have canoe districts, and we would not be able to follow that. Whatever plan we choose to move forward with we are going to have to have a reapportiomnent committee. That is probably why when it was proposed in 2006 they had an apportionment committee even though it was still matching the State districts. Chair TenBruggencate suggested there is one scenario in which they could avoid the reapportionment issue and require the various parts of our community get covered and that is by adopting the moku system. You would absolutely not have equivalent numbers of people but if you took the moku of Halele`a and Koolau on the North Shore that would extricate Kapa`a altogether and it would be considered the North Shore district. Any districting scheme is going to include a fair amount of Kapa`a just to get enough people into that district. You would have one councilmember from the North Shore and Napali, one councilmember from Puna — the Lihu`e and Kapa`a area — and then another councilmember from Kona, Mana, and Niihau, but that system would only work if you had at -large voting because it follows the Maui example and avoids the one -man, one -vote issue. Mr. Parachini said he found the Kauai Transportation Data Book on the Internet, which is the only place he has seen a population breakdown in looking at the island as 5 population centers. It was pointed out that Mr. Justus had also created that information through his own research. Mr. Parachini said the North Shore has a problem no matter what. If you look at Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Em- SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION the 5 population center model the North Shore in 2010 had 8,000 people which was more than 3,000 fewer than the next highest ones. The question this raises is if this scheme says the North Shore begins at Moloa`a do we know what would happen to the population of the North Shore if you (inaudible) Kealia and Anahola. Mr. Justus said he used the 2010 census data and broke the island into 5 districts — North, East, Central, South and West — trying to break them down by fairly even population numbers. Each one is somewhere between 11,000 to 12,000 residents per district. In order for the North Shore to be more balanced with all the other districts it would have to include Kawaihau, Kealia and Anahola before it could become an even population with the rest of the districts. Mr. Parachini noted that would not please residents out of the North Shore. Mr. Justus said he looked at the voting numbers and the candidates they chose from the 2014 election and pretty much all the polling centers, Anahola and North, voted Barca for Mayor and Felicia Cowden as their top candidate and Gary Hooser as their top candidate. Mr. Parachini asked Mr. Justus if he was sure that was true about Anahola to which Mr. Justus said he was pretty sure that was true; he might be wrong about the Council part but does believe they voted Barca for Mayor. Mr. Parachini believed that was incorrect. Chair TenBruggencate stated they should not make their decision based on how people voted in the past; they need to make their decision (inaudible). Mr. Guy said they have had conversations about economic sources of the island, the expenditures, and districting representation, which is all a very complex issue. As a person who has been a proponent of districts for a long time keeping it simple and keeping the reapportiomnent within mokus or 5 districts and present that to the general public is challenging. Let the voter vote on districting and after all the work that has been done that is such a much easier transition. If we need to reassess that in a couple of years and if we can do better, we can do better. Keep it clear, keep it easy to present and Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 -.,_.. SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION give the voters the opportunity to vote on districting. Mr. Parachini said he has been doing a fair amount of research and it has caused him to abandon his notion that observing the 3 State House Districts would make the most sense; he did not even consider the canoe district issue. He is not seeing a way that reflects the diversity of the communities on the island. Mr. Guy said absolutely not; it gives better representation of the westside, the northside and the eastside. Obviously 7 districts would be the best representation if you wanted to get each district to have a strong........ Mr. Justus said for him the one that seems to match most the different cultural divisions of the island and the one the County uses for their TMK map data is 5 districts. There are a lot of different things in which the County breaks down the island into 5 districts. As a westsider when districting came onto the ballot in 2006 there were only 3 districts, and they lumped the west and south shore together. As much as he wanted districts he could not support the idea of lumping the westside and the south shore together because they are completely different types of communities; they have different needs, they have different characteristics. 5 districts with 2 at -large is the most ideal with a west district, the south shore, central, east and the north. You still have the at -large perspective and it is very important to maintain an at -large perspective. Mr. Justus said he is leaning towards 5 districts, but is open to whatever the majority thinks. Mr. Parachini said someone had told him that blank ballots count as noes. When you look at the number of blank ballots in 2010 and 2006 the number of blank ballots are very high. People are fond of saying each time this is on the ballot it has come closer to being passed, but not if you count the blank ballots. Chair TenBruggencate said the blank votes are counted differently Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION in State races and in County races. On State Constitutional matters the blank ballots are counted as noes; in County races blank votes are not counted. Mr. Parachini said the high volume of blank votes tells us that either people were confused, or didn't understand what this was all about in the first place, which is why it is so important for the Commission to reach a clear consensus on a specific proposal. Mr. Justus reads blank votes differently; he reads it as they didn't care enough to vote about it. It was not important enough to them, and if they didn't understand it why didn't they just vote no. If you don't vote, it doesn't count. Mr. Parachini said these are people who showed up at the polling place or sent in their absentee ballot and if you look at other issues that were on the ballot the last time, disclosure, judicial nominees' names, relating to State justices' retirement ages — huge numbers of people refused to vote on those. Mr. Justus thought maybe they didn't feel they were qualified to vote on it. Ms. Ako said at the last meeting she said she was not able to vote and she needed to get more infonnation. She went back to the 2013 and 2014 minutes and looked at the sub - committee findings and became aware through the March 24, 2014, minutes there were a lot of members from the public who appeared that weren't too keen on changing what was now. The sentiment was if it is not broken then why are we fixing it? Listening to the discussion today it has gone past whether we should do districting to how are we going to redistrict and that is where she is stuck again. Has the Commission decided that we are going forward because that is the first thing? The next step would be if we are going to move forward then what are we looking at? Ms. Ako said she was asking for clarification because right now it is just discussion and it is going all over the place. Agreeing with Mr. Parachini that when there is a large percentage of blank votes we have failed as a Commission because that means there is a large population that did not understand what was put out to them. Mr. Guy said if the Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION proposal is for 7 districts he would say no, but for him it is the Commission's responsibility to give the public an opportunity to vote on districting again. As a group Mr. Guy did not think they could all say they were in on issues and hammer out what the district is because if the district is not a certain way he will not support it. They have to find something they can all agree on in order to move this and give it to the people to vote on. As far as the misunderstanding and the challenge on the no votes confusing questions are something this Commission has been criticized for a lot. Ms. Stiglmeier agreed with Ms. Ako saying the Commission needs to come to a decision as to whether or not they want to move forward with districting. We are discussing how to break down the districts without even having said we are going to move forward with this. Mr. Stack asked if they could float a motion on discussing districting going forward without specifying what it would be. Chair TenBruggencate said the last time districting came up almost everyone on the Commission had some form of districting they wanted, but if it wasn't that one they weren't going to vote for any, and we have already heard that from Mr. Guy. Mr. Stack said the purpose in floating the motion is simply not to waste time on irrelevant scenarios, but find out if we have a majority that wants to pursue districting. At a later time we can propose the benefits of the districts. Mr. Justus said to address the blank votes he understands the need to get those people to vote, but he is concerned that a charter amendment only passes when it is the majority over no and blank votes. Ms. Ako said she was commenting on Mr. Justus' comment that if there were blank votes it said to him the voter was not interested, but she felt it was not that they did not care about it, it could be they did not understand the issue. They came to the polls to vote, and if they really didn't care they wouldn't have showed up. We need to educate the public so they can make a decision, whether yes or no. Chair TenBruggencate suspended the rules to allow Ms. Cowden to Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION comment on other agenda items since she needed to be at another meeting. Ms. Cowden said she is very interested in this issue, and said she could have filled the room had she known about this before. CRC 2015 -07, Ms. Cowden enthusiastically supports Commissioners attendance at other boards; it is a significant limitation in the way it is now. CRC 2015 -11 the Council's ability to influence their own tern limits they should not be able to propose that legislation. If someone else proposes it, certainly they can talk about it, but it seem like a significant conflict of interest. CRC 2015 -12 on the Mayor and County Manager position, and it is not a real simple question. It is a little bit dangerous to just jump to that. It is a concentration of power. If you have a powerful individual on the Council it could be a simple bloc vote. We can't reduce the County to a simple running of a business, it is the leadership of a community. She suggested putting really stringent criteria on the Managing Director and have that position that is essentially like a County Manager that has real strong background in fiscal management, planning and community development. Then they would not have to have been here a long time because there would be a Mayor in place that balances that. Mr. Justus pointed out the proposal he put forth was not the creation of a council /manager system. Ms. Cowden said she was not aware of what he had put forth. Mr. Justus said what Ms. Cowden proposed was pretty close in principle to what he had proposed to the Commission with the only difference instead of the Managing Director it is called the County Manager and is jointly selected by the Mayor and the Council to which Ms. Cowden said she was really down with that and thinks still yet they should have a Mayor. On the first issue she thinks they should have 4 at -large as there will always be a majority that is looking at the interest of it although she does agree there are 5 districts. Chair TenBruggencate asked if there was a motion on districting and Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION whether there is a commitment on the part of the Commission to move forward with a discussion on districting. Mr. Stack moved to determine if the Commission wished to continue discussing and deliberating districting. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote to pursue districting: nay -Ako; aye -Guy; aye - Justus; aye - Parachini; aye- Stack; aye- Stiglmeier; aye- TenBruggencate. Motion carried 6:1 Mr. Justus moved the Commission accept a proposal for a charter amendment for 5 Council districts and 2 -At Large districts. Mr. Guy cautioned that before they make a motion on a specific proposal and someone does not support it and it is shut down that they discuss it more. There are 3 Commissioners present that voted for districts in the past and worked very extensively on the topic and are flexible on the issue. Ms. Ako said what is currently on the agenda is what they just voted on and they made a decision on whether to pursue developing and placement of an amendment. The next step is there needs to be an agenda item that is sunshined for the public to look at and which can be modified. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Parachini said it has been 5 years since this Commission explored the topic with the community and he did not think they could to a sensible conclusion about what the community is interested in at this point. Mr. Parachini suggested that they form a sub - committee to go back out and engage the community to try to get a sense of whether it is possible to reach a consensus that would not leave people helplessly confused. Mr. Guy said the challenge of reaching a consensus is going into a room of people who have not Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION read the proposal and you get a bigger confused discussion on what the best thing is. Mr. Justus then corrected the timeline saying it has not been 5 years since this body went out to the community; at most it has been 2 years if that. Community meetings were held when the Commission was trying to put this on the 2014 ballot. Mr. Guy asked Mr. Parachini if he saw one proposal that would fit with the island and the numbers. Mr. Parachini said the way the map lays out envisioning 5 population centers makes sense. He has recently abandoned his idea of saving money and avoiding litigation over apportionment by sticking to the existing 3 district design. We should not be constrained by the State House districts that already exist. Mr. Parachini said 5 districts makes the most sense to him. Mr. Guy said from sitting on those committees, a lot of people wanted to vote for their 7 councilmembers. With 4 districts and 3 at -large you still have the opportunity to vote for the majority of the Council. Your vote can influence the Council because you vote for your district and the 3 at- large. Mr. Justus said he prefers the 5 in the sense that no community has one majority over any other. Mr. Parachini said on the Council vote there were 42,000 blank votes suggesting a huge number of people did not vote for 7 names. Chair TenBruggencate said that works out on average that everyone voted for 5. Mr. Guy moved to form a sub - committee to create a proposal to put on next month's agenda. Mr. Parachini seconded the motion. Staff informed the Commission that the sub - committee report will come back next month for review, but cannot be discussed until the following month. Chair TenBruggencate said the other alternative would be that 2 members have a conversation and recommend a proposal without the sub- committee process and bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Parachini said the timing does not much matter since nothing they do can be before the voters before 2016. Chair TenBruggencate said by about April or May the Commission's work has to be done other than processing what has been Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION approved because of the deadlines for getting things on the ballot. Chair TenBruggencate recapped the process in which he appoints 3 people who work out a proposal and bring back the report to the next meeting, but it cannot be voted on at that meeting. The report comes back at the December meeting for Commission action unless that meeting is cancelled because of the holidays in which the report would come back in January. Asked when the last sub - committee went to the community Staff replied it was early 2014, but there have been 2 sub - committees that worked on the issue of districting. Roll call vote to form a sub - committee: aye -Ako; aye -Guy; abstain - Justus; aye - Parachini; nay- Stiglmeier; nay- TenBruggencate Motion carried 4:2:1 Chair TenBruggencate appointed Ms. Ako, Mr. Parachini and Mr. Stack to submit a recommendation to Staff 10 days prior to the November meeting. CRC 2015 -07 Request from a member of the public via Chair TenBruggencate to again consider a proposed amendment to allow county board and commission members to appear before other county boards, commissions, or agencies (Section 20.02 D) (Deferred from 9/28/15 meeting) a. Letter dated 9/25115 from Paul K requesting the Commission evaluate the impact of this section and consider revising it b. Proposed amendment dated 10/15115 from Chair TenBruggencate revising Section 20.02 D Mr. Guy moved to approve the proposed Attorney Dureza commented on the grammar of the proposed language amendment. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. noting that the word "provided" was not required, which is typically a conjunction and is part of a dependent clause. Start the sentence with "However" which makes the sentence more grammatically correct and say Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION "on behalf' instead of "in behalf'. Mr. Justus moved to approve the proposed amendment as amended. Mr. Guy seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:1 (nay - Parachini) Motion to approve main motion as amended carried 7:0 CRC 2015 -10 Proposed amendment dated 10/2/15 from Commissioner Guy revising Section III as relates to a vacancy in the County Council Mr. Guy moved to approve the proposed amendment. Mr. Justus seconded the motion. Chair TenBruggencate said his preference would be to go to the eighth but not the ninth candidate. There have been elections in the past where there have only been nine candidates and he is not sure it serves the public to have the voters' least favorite candidate be placed on the Council. He further suggested after the eighth candidate the Council should go the traditional way of having the other councilmembers make the selection. Attorney Dureza said the language seems to contemplate that we may move into a situation with at -large districting, and it is confusing because it implies there is already a system where there is an at -large councilmember if you have that language. Mr. Justus said he believes there are portions in the charter that refer to at -large councilmembers as at -large councilmembers (Article I, Section 1.03 C). Attorney Dureza said that is the system we have now; we don't have district councilmembers. Mr. Justus said in 20.12 they proposed language that adjusted Section 1.03 in which C changed to office of at -large councilmembers. Chair TenBruggencate said there are a couple of places in the Council where it is written in such a way it assumes there might be a system that is a little different from now. Having a provision that provides for a special situation for district councilmembers has no effect if there are no district councilmembers. Attorney Dureza asked if there were any sections in the Charter that references an alternate system. Mr. Justus said by including the words at -large leaves room for the Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION eventuality of if districting is added you do not have to go back and add at- large. Attorney Dureza said that part does bother him and is not sure there is something that is unlawful about it. Attorney Dureza said the language would be clearer by adding "In the event a vacancy occurs in the council for the position of an at -large councilmember ". That would also apply to the second paragraph: "In the event a vacancy occurs in the council for the position of a district Mr. Justus moved to approve as amended. Ms. councilmember ". Stiglmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0 Chair TenBruggencate said he would be voting against the main motion as Roll Call Vote on the main motion as amended: amended because he would not want to go to the ninth candidate. Aye -Ako; aye -Guy; aye - Justus; aye- Parachini; aye- Stack; aye - Stiglmeier; nay - TenBruggencate. Motion carried 6:1 CRC 2015 -11 Proposed amendment dated 10/15/15 from Commissioner Justus revising Section XXIV as relates to the Council's authority to propose amendments pertaining to council terms or to council compensation and Section XXIX limiting the Salary Commission's authority to council compensation only. Chair TenBruggencate asked for a motion. Mr. Justus so moved. Mr. Guy seconded for the sake of discussion. Mr. Justus said this proposal was to limit a conflict of interest from the Council. It eliminates their ability to propose amendments that concern their tenns of office or their monetary compensation. The proposed amendments from the Council on either of these areas of the Charter would inevitably be considered self - serving. Council has made proposals over the years to increase their terms of office from 2 years to 4 years and it has been Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION presented on the ballot by the Council 5 times (sic), but has been rejected by the voters every time by a continuously wide margin. The power to propose amendments regarding their terms of office would rest either with the voter petition or the Charter Commission. The other part of this proposal is transferring Council's ability to propose charter amendments regarding Council compensation to the Salary Commission. This would be the only area the Salary Commission could propose amendments to. This eliminates any conflict of interest from the Council for their pay or future pay and any potential amendments the Council could snake to try to remove the power of the Salary Commission from establishing their salary. The voters would have to approve any amendments from the Council, but this prevents potentially self - serving amendments from the Council from burdening the ballot and the voter. Changes to those areas in the Charter should be proposed by either voter petition or by the Charter Commission, and if this measure were to pass in the case of Council compensation the Salary Commission could propose that. Any proposal that could help to eliminate areas that can be potential conflicts of interest are worth putting on the ballot for the voters to decide. Chair TenBruggencate asked what sort of a charter amendment Mr. Justus would envision that the Salary Commission would propose with regard to Council salary. Asked if he was proposing the Council salary be established in the Charter, Mr. Justus said no. It is already established how the Council has their salaries set, but if the Salary Commission comes to an agreement with the Council of how they want to do a different way of compensating the Council, instead of the Council coming up with a way, the Salary Commission would only have the power to propose a charter amendment relating only to the Council's salary — they couldn't propose amendments dealing with anything else. It would remove the Council's ability to propose any charter amendments that affect their salary. Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 19 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ms. Ako said the Charter Commission has a sunset (date) in 2016 and asked who authorizes this Commission. Chair TenBruggencate said this Commission's current sitting was authorized by a charter amendment for a ten year sitting. The Charter calls for a Charter Commission to be seated for 3 years every 10 years. Thereafter charter amendments will be able to be made only by the County Council or by petition from the voters. Ms. Ako said based on Mr. Justus' proposal if the County Council wants to make any changes to their tenn limits or compensation, compensation has to go back to the Salary Commission and changes to term limits would have to come through a petition. Chair TenBruggencate said the public has been fully capable and willing to shoot down the Council when they think the Council has proposed an inappropriate measure and he does not think this is needed. There might be other reasons the Council might want to make those decisions, and to limit our community's only one of two ways of amending the Charter is unnecessary. Attorney Dureza questioned Section 29.07 of the proposal and asked what Mr. Justus was envisioning and how that provision is supposed to work. Mr. Justus said that is the same language that exists for the Charter Commission; it explains what happens when the Salary Commission proposes a change regarding compensation for the Council. In relation to Mr. Justus' comment that it mirrors the language in Section 24.03 regarding Charter Review, Attorney Dureza asked how it mirrored it. Mr. Justus said it is just stating the process that the Salary Commission can propose amendments to the existing Charter only regarding Council compensation. Attorney Dureza asked if Mr. Justus was envisioning that Council's compensation would be stated in the Charter to which Mr. Justus said no. It is not changing the existing structure, but for Section 3.06 it removes Council's power to amend that section. It does give the power to the Salary Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Commission to amend that particular section of the Charter because it is about Council compensation. Attorney Dureza said based on this he is giving the Salary Commission authority to change the Charter without going through the regular amendment process. Mr. Justus said they go through the same amendment process that this Board goes through. Attorney Dureza said according to the proposal as long as they vote 5 or more they change the Charter without going through the regular process. Mr. Justus disagreed saying the majority of voters vote upon it, it then becomes fixed. Chair TenBruggencate suggested that limitation on what they can do is not in there; based on the way it is written they could recommend paying the councilmembers $250,000 a year a piece and put that in the Charter. Mr. Justus said it would not go in the Charter, it would go on the ballot for the voters to decide. Attorney Dureza said there was a comment at a previous meeting on whether or not to reduce the Mayor's compensation to zero, and whether or not there was authority to do that. By Statute, the Commission is limited in what it can do in touching the compensation or salary of officers. Typically how it works Charters can be limited by a governing state statute. HRS 46- 22 suggests in terms of salaries it is regulated by ordinances implying that power belongs to the councilmembers. Mr. Justus said he would be glad to remove the section giving the power to the Salary Commission if that is a bone of contention, if anyone thinks there is anything else in the proposal worth pursuing. Mr. Justus said he would withdraw the proposal to which Chair TenBruggencate said he could not withdraw the proposal as there was a motion on the floor, and called for a roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: nay -Ako; nay -Guy; aye - Justus; nay - Parachini; nay- Stack; nay- Stiglmeier; nay - TenBruggencate. Motion fails 1:6 CRC 2015 -12 Proposed amendment dated 10/15/15 from Commissioner Justus revising Articles VI and VII as relates to the Mayor and a County Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 I'._- I SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Manager system Chair TenBruggencate noted there was testimony on this item earlier from Ms. Cowden. Mr. Justus stated there needed to be two corrections to the proposal. He submitted an amended proposal to the Chair which did not end up in the packet. It eliminated any changes that were made to Section 7.03 so nothing changes (he removed the sentence regarding the mayor receiving no compensation). The ballot question should actually read: Effective December 2018 shall there be a county manager, who is selected by both the mayor and the council? Chair TenBruggencate asked Mr. Justus if his motion was to approve the proposal with the corrections. Mr. Justus stated that he presented this as not a complete proposed amendment but just a draft of a concept. Mr. Justus moved to defer this item to the next meeting. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Ms. Ako moved to table the amendment since the Council is in the process of looking at this issue. Chair TenBruggencate stopped discussion to take care of the motion to defer since a motion to defer does not allow for discussion. Roll Call Vote on motion to defer: nay -Ako; nay -Guy; aye- Justus; nay - Parachini; nay- Stack; aye- Stiglmeier; nay- TenBruggencate. Motion failed 2:5 Ms. Ako moved to receive the proposed amendment. Mr. Parachini seconded the motion. Ms. Ako said this issue is currently being discussed at the Council level. Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 22 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION They have a sub - committee and it appears there will be a briefing this Wednesday on the progress of it, and by the end of the year there will be a larger presentation. Instead of two bodies working on the same issue, let the Council move forward with their study on the County Manager. Mr. Parachini shared Ms. Ako's concern about this as he was also aware of the briefing on Wednesday by the Council sub - committee. The most unfortunate outcome of all of this would be for the Charter Review Commission and the County Council to put dueling charter amendments on the ballot. Mr. Parachini said he has some real questions about what this proposal actually accomplishes in terns of changing much of anything. It is extremely important, not that we defer to the Council's sub - committee, but to be mindful of the existence of that examination. It is vitally in our interest as a body to know what the Council may be considering, and hold up doing more with this until it becomes clear what direction the Council is going to take. He is not suggesting the Executive branch defer to the Legislative branch, but merely saying it would be very unfortunate if on an issue of such high public interest any decision on what to do is influenced by the fact there could be competing proposals on the ballot creating confusion that does not need to exist, and therefore he supports the motion to receive. Mr. Justus said he did know the Council had a sub - committee formed to examine the county manager concept. When this body did its sub- committee regarding the county manager system we received an opinion from the County Attorney's Office that basically said the county manager system under the Hawai `i State Constitution is not able to exist. You cannot put a council /county manager system in effect in any county in the county of Kauai (sic). He proposed this alternative proposal to give an option that could actually work because he cannot imagine the Council necessarily putting forward a proposal like this that would share power between the Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Page 23 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION mayor and the council regarding a county manager. This is not to subvert the Council's decision; this is to have preemptive discussion of whether this a viable alternative. We could even present this to the Council to see what they think about it. Mr. Justus said in his mind this is the only conceivable way you can have a county manager -like system, but still have it valid under the Hawaii State Constitution. Mr. Parachini said his understanding was there was some dispute over whether that legal interpretation is correct. Mr. Guy applauded all of Mr. Justus' work and efforts on the Commission, but said he would not be supporting it. Ms. Stiglmeier asked if this was something they could approach the Council with, and perhaps combine efforts so there are not two dueling items on the ballot. Mr. Parachini said if they were to vote favorably on Ms. Ako's motion, but request the Chair to attend the Wednesday Council meeting to make it known to the Council that this discussion has been occurring here, and seek to form an impression about what direction we should take - whether to continue deliberating on something on our own or defer to them. Attorney Dureza did not think that was appropriate. It is sort of envisioning a partnership with the Council that he was not sure the Charter Review was supposed to do. Mr. Parachini said the proposal is in the record; it was an attachment to the agenda so chances are quite good they are aware that something has come to our attention in this meeting today. Roll Call Vote: aye -Ako; aye -Guy; nay- Justus; aye - Parachini; aye - Stack; aye - Stiglmeier; aye - TenBruggencate. Motion carried 6:1 Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, November 23, 2015 — 4:00 p.m. Mr. Justus requested to bring back the item of a permanent Charter Commission to the agenda to which the Chair agreed to a discussion of a charter amendment calling for a permanent Charter Commission. Adjournment Chair TenBruggencate adjourned the meeting at 6:04 p.m. Charter Review Commission Open Session October 26, 2015 Submitted by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk () Approved as circulated. O Approved with amendments t .i See minutes of Reviewed and Approved by: meeting. Jan TenBruggencate, Chair Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. Mayor Nadine K. Nakamura Managing Director Jay Furfaro Administrator COUNTY OF KAUAI Jan TenBruggencate, Chair Joel Guy, Vice -Chair Merilee (Mia) Ako Ed Justus Allan Parachmi Patrick Stack Cheryl Stiglmeier CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO: See Attached Distribution List Cc: Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., Mayor Nadine K. Nakamura, Managing Director FROM: Jan TenBruggencate, Chair Via: Jay Furfaro, Administrator DATE: August 27, 2015 RE: Requesting Input on areas of the Kauai County Charter In accordance with Article XXIV of the Kauai County Charter, Section 24.03, the Charter Review Commission will sunset in 2016. As a result the Commission is soliciting comments and/or recommendations regarding specific areas of concern or issues related to your department and /or duties as determined by the Charter for consideration of inclusion on the 2016 General Election ballot. The next Charter Review Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 28, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. in the Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/B, with subsequent meetings on the fourth Monday of each month. We would welcome you to attend our meeting to discuss your viewpoints and/or suggestions. The Commission will be accepting input for proposed ballot amendments through the end of 2015 at which time we will need to commence work on the legal review for all proposed amendments. If you would like to appear before the Charter Review Commission to discuss your concerns at any of our future meetings please contact Barbara Davis, Office of Boards and Commissions at bdavis(a�kauai.gov or 241 -4917. Mahalo. o 4444 Rice Street, Suite 150 a Lihu`e, Hawaii 96766 • (808) 241 -4917 a Fax (808) 241 -5127 ARTICLE XII FIRE DEPARTMENT Section 12.01. Organization. There shall be a fire department consisting of a fire chief, a fire commission, and the necessary staff. (Amended 2006) Section 12.02. Fire Chief. The fire chief shall be appointed and may be removed by the fire commission. [14e] The fire chief shall have had a minimum of five years of training and experience in fire prevention and [eentrel] operations in private industry or government service, at least three years of which shall have been in a responsible administrative capacity. (Amended 1980, 2006) Section 12.03 Powers, Duties, and Functions. The fire chief shall be the administrative head of the fire department and shall: A. Appoint, train, equip, supervise and discipline the personnel of the fire department in accordance with department rules and civil service regulations. B. [Pr-eyide a uf%n4iye +fegfnm and leadefs ip f6f nounty wide fire r t� 11V Y1L1V t111 V11VVL1 YL+ �J1V� , fife eefftrel and fesette opefati^ Provide for a safer community through effective leadership and programs in fire prevention, fire operations, hazardous materials, emergency medicine, ocean safety, rescue operations and all hazards. C. Control, manage and account for all property in the custody of the fire department. D. Execute such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by law or assigned by the [Ma3ef] fire commission. Section 12.04. Fire Commission. There shall be a fire commission consisting of seven members. Commission members shall be appointed by the mayor and approved by the council and be otherwise governed by the provisions of section 23.02 of the charter. Section 12.05. Powers, Duties, and Functions of the Fire Commission. The fire commission shall: A. Adopt rules necessary for the conduct of its business and review rules for the administration of the department. B. Review the annual budget prepared by the fire chief and make recommendations thereon to the mayor and the council. C. Review the department's operations, as deemed necessary, for the purpose of recommending improvements to the fire chief. C. ieC Qors - q D. Evaluate at least annually the performance of the fire chief and submit a report to the mayor and the council. E. Hear complaints of citizens concerning the department or its personnel and, if the commission deems necessary, make recommendations to the fire chief on appropriate corrective actions. F. Submit an annual report to the mayor and the council regarding its activities. Except for purposes of inquiry or as otherwise provided in this charter, neither the commission nor its members shall interfere in any way with the administrative affairs of the department. (Amended 2006) NOTES to changes: Section 12.01. Add the word "fire" to be consistent with other sections of the charter. Section 12.02. Remove "He" add "The fire chief' to make the statement gender neutral. Remove "control" add "operations" to modernize and standardize the terminology within the chapter. Section 12.03 B. Wording changed to better reflect current operations and terminology also to identify the fire department is now performing more than just fire control and prevention Section 12.03 D. Changes suggested so it is consistent with other sections of the charter. Special Committee on County Districting AUTHORITY: The Special Committee on County Districting is hereby established pursuant to Section 92 -2.5, Hawai'i Revised Statues and Rule 6, Rules of the Kauai County Charter Review Commission, COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Mr. Patrick Stack, Member Ms. Merilee (Mia) Ako, Member Mr. Alan Parachini, Member SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION. A Special Committee is hereby established by the Charter Review Commission to determine the best districting plan and present a specific proposal for consideration by the full commission. The Committee may: 1. Research, request, and arrange for experts to present information about County Districting which may include possible changes in term limits for District Seats; (Note: Prior to requesting any expenditure of funds, the Committee shall ensure that any experts conduct the necessary advanced research to determine whether the County Charter can be amended to provide for County Districting and changes in Term Limits for District Seats and still conform to the provisions of the Hawai'i State Constitution and Hawaii Revised Statutes.) 2. Research and obtain written materials on the subject of County Districting; and 3. Consider public input regarding suggested changes in County Districting. The Committee shall prepare and submit a written report for consideration at a duly noticed meeting of the Charter Review Commission. The report shall contain an overview of the Committee's findings and recommendations as well as an explanation of any proposed amendments to the County Charter as may be necessary or desirable to implement County Districting for the County of Kauai. SCOPE OF MEMBER'S AUTHORITY: The authority of the members on the Special Committee on County Districting shall only be advisory in nature and do not represent the views of the Charter Review Commission or the County of Kauai. The Committee's findings and recommendations shall not be binding on the Charter Review Commission or the County of Kauai. w-�G 0za�5 -t3 Proposing a Charter Amendment to Article XXII and XXIV relating to the percentage of required voters for an initiative petition, a referendum petition, or a charter amendment petition and to specify what a charter amendment is as well as to enable the county clerk to determine whether the proposal is a valid charter amendment. Findings and Purpose. The Charter Commission of the County of Kauai proposes this amendment to two sections of the County Charter for the purposes of clarifying certain sections, and adding consistency between different ways in which citizens may raise petitions to address county government. Specifically, the Charter Commission seeks to simplify sections of the Charter that deal with initiative and referendum, and with amending the Charter itself; and this language also seeks to clarify what constitutes a Charter amendment, and establishes the County Clerk as the individual charged with determining whether Charter amendment petitions are properly constituted. Thus, the four parts of this proposal would: 1. Reduce the number of registered voter signatures required for an initiative or referendum petition from 20 percent to 10 percent of the number of registered voters in the last election. 2. Increase the number of registered voter signatures required for a Charter amendment from 5 percent to 10 percent of the number of registered voters in the last election. 3. Establish that a Charter amendment is limited to amending the form or structure of county government, and is not a method of adopting local laws. 4. Establishes that the County Clerk is authorized to determine whether a petition is a valid charter amendment proposal. The Charter does not now designate who has that authority. Charter Amendment. Article XXII of the Kaua °i County Charter is amended to read as follows: FAIJ 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. B. The power of the voters to approve or reject ordinances that have been passed by the county council (except as provided in Section C` R(a Q.o /S - 4 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. 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 referendum petition addressed to the particular ordinance and requesting that referred to the voters of the county. ordinance shall submit a council, identifying the it be either repealed or C. Each initiative or each referendum petition must be signed by registered voters comprising not less than [ nty- peieen (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 petition as provided by this article. (Amended 1976) Section 22.05. Initiative and Referendum Petition: Form and Sufficiencv. 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. (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. may request the county or before the meeting A majority council at which of the petitioner's committee to review a clerk's certificate, at the clerk presents the certificate to the council. The certificate, upon the council shall review the latest clerk's committee's request, and shall approve or reject the certificate or may substitute its own determination of sufficiency of the petition by 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. County 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. B. If the council rejects an initiative amendment proposal passes it with an amendment unacceptable to a majority of or the petitioner's committee, or if the council fails to repeal an ordinance reconsidered submit the originally pursuant proposed to a referendum petition, it shall initiative ordinance or refer 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 (4) members of the petitioners committee. Upon the filing of the request, the petition shall have no further force or effect and all proceedings thereon shall be terminated. (Amended 1976) 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) Note: Charter material to be repealed is bracketed. New charter material is underscored. Charter Amendment. Article XVIV of the Kauai County Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 24.01 substance of on [ Initi-atien— ef 20acrendffients . ] Initiation and 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. forth the proposed amendments. authorize not less than Be By petition [pL=esentedte county clerk, signed by —th-e eeiane; l ] filed with the registered voters comprising not less than [five ten percent (10 %) of the number of per -Few] voters registered in the last general election, setting forth the proposed amendments. authorize not less than Such three petitions shall designate nor more than five of the and signers thereto to approve any alteration or change in the form or language or any restatement of the text of the proposed amendments official which may be [made] suggested by the county attorney. (Amended within thirty (30 days 2012) date of such amendment. Upon filing of such petition [with the eeuneil] , 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) Ballot Question #1: Shall the percentage of registered voter signatures be reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent for an initiative or a referendum and increased to 10 percent from 5 percent for a charter amendment? Ballot Question #2: Shall it be specified what constitutes a charter amendment and shall the processing of proposed petition charter amendments also be revised to enable the county clerk to determine whether the proposal is a valid charter amendment? Revised 082415 Proposed Amendment Clarity on Council Authority over Disruptive Affecting Article III, Section 3.07D Members Section 3.07D. The council may, upon an affirmative vote of at least two - thirds of its entire membership, expel from a meeting any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence. 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. (deleted material is bracketed, new material is underlined) Ballot Question. Shall it be clarified that the council has the authority to expel one of its members by affirmative vote of at least two- thirds of its entire membership for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence? Justus (090215) Amended 092815 An Amendment Relating to Establishing A Permanent Charter Review Commission. Charter Amendment. Article XXIV, section 24.03 of the Kaua'i County Charter shall be amended to read as follows: ARTICLE XXIV CHARTER AMENDMENT 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 yeaFs sir r tensing -ice 2007. TheFeafteF, t-4 ]• 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) Ballot Question: Shall the Charter Review Commission be a permanent commission? (note: language is from the original 412011 proposal, updated to match current charter) Charter Review Commission Timeline for 2016 Charter Amendments DRAFT March 28 Cutoff date /final approval for proposed Charter Review (Monday) Commission amendment submittals April 25 Finalize the Findings /Purpose and Ballot Question for (Monday) proposed Charter amendments May 30 CRC to review amendments and forward to the County (Monday) Attorney for legal review July 1 Communications Team to prepare and format Voter (Friday) Education Material for CRC review at 7/25 meeting and forward to County Attorney for review July 25 Final approval of proposed Charter recommendations by (Monday) CRC August 1 (Monday) to Primary Election walk -in absentee polling period; August 11 (Thursday); M -S pursuant to HRS § 15 -7 8to4 August 13 Primary Election (Saturday) August 17 Final review of Voter Education Material due from the (Wednesday) County Attorney August 24 All Charter amendment questions(s) due to the County (Wednesday) Clerk for printing of ballot pursuant to HRS § I I A 19(b) (including Ramseyer text of amendment in Word format) August 25 All Charter amendment questions(s) due to State Chief (Thursday) Election Officer for printing of ballot pursuant to HRS § 11- 119(b) (including Ramseyer text of amendment in Word format) August 25 Send Voter Education Material to the Printer for (Thursday) printing, folding and stuffing in mail -out ballots per approval from the County Clerk/Elections Office if size and weight allows for inclusion TBD Finalized camera -ready voter education for print media September 23 Mail -out of General Election absentee ballots to (Friday) overseas voters (allows for 6 day challenge following primary + 4 day judicial response) (Federal guideline suggests 30 -45 days prior to General) TBD -date for local mail out ➢ Mail voter education to non - Kauai addresses October 5 County Clerk and Commission jointly publish all (Wednesday) proposed Charter amendments in a newspaper of general circulation in the county pursuant to Kaua'i County Charter Section 24.02 B. (publish not less than 30 days prior) Week of October 17 -21 Publish voter education in print media October 25 (Tuesday) to General Election walk -in absentee polling period; November 5 (Saturday) pursuant to HRS § 15 -7 M -S 8 to 4 November 8 General Election (Tuesday) December 7 County Clerk to publish approved Charter amendments (Wednesday) in a newspaper of general circulation in the county within 30 days.