Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_0824_Minutes Open_APPROVEDCOUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 9/28/15 Board /Committee: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date August 24, 2015 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A /213 Start of Meeting: 4:02 pm End of Meeting: 4:41 pm Present Chair Jan TenBruggencate; Vice Chair Joel Guy. Members: Allan Parachini; Patrick Stack; Cheryl Stiglmeier Also: Deputy County Attorney Philip Dureza (4:13 p.m.); Boards & Commissions Office Staff. Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrator Jay Furfaro Excused Members: Ed Justus; Mia Ako Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair TenBruggencate called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm with 5 Commissioners present. Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of July 27, 2015 Mr. Parachini moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Ms. Stiglmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 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 Staff reported that the last indication received from the County Clerk's office is the end of September is their target date. Mr. Guy moved to defer this item to the September meeting. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 CRC 2015 -03 Chairman's report and discussion on the status of the preamble Chair TenBruggencate met with Ms. Jade Fountain - Tanigawa, County Clerk, who said they are continuing to research this issue. The issue is that the preamble, which has no force of law, was there when the Charter was first passed, and in subsequent printed versions of the Charter, there is no preamble. Commissioner Justus had asked if it could be put back in, but the Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION County Clerk and the County Attorney's offices recognized that maybe there was a reason it was taken off and want to further research it. No further correspondence to the County Clerk is required as they are actively aware of this and awaiting a report back. 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 Chair TenBruggencate explained that the Commission is less than a year from when it has to submit all of its charter amendments for the ballot, and suggested they should ask the Boards and Commissions for charter amendments they would like considered. The suggestion was to also send letters to the various department heads asking them to bring whatever changes they have to our attention. This has been asked in the past with no response, but as a courtesy it should be brought forward again. Mr. Stack moved to contact the 17 or so department heads and invite them to alert the Commission to any changes, omissions, or errors they may see. Ms. Stiglmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 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 Chair TenBruggencate said the suggestion is to take the number of signatures required to amend the Charter and make it the same as the number of signatures required to do an initiative and referendum and set that level at 10 %; currently it is 5% for charter amendments and 20% for initiative and referendum. Chair TenBruggencate suggested it was probably a bad idea to have it way easier to change the most fundamental document Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION of the County government than to pass an ordinance. He further explained that the Commission has been unable to come up with enough votes to reverse the situation and also unable to agree on any number, but seem to have developed at least a working majority around just making those Mr. Guy moved to change all 3 percentages to numbers the same. 10% for discussion purposes. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. It was pointed out that the percentages had been previously approved; the Commission now needs to develop the ballot language. Chair TenBruggencate said they would vacate that motion. (sic) Proposed Ballot Question: Shall the number of registered voter signatures required on petitions for charter amendments, initiative and referendum all Mr. Guy moved to approve the proposed ballot be changed to 10 %? question to be reviewed by the County Attorney. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Mr. Guy asked if the definition of initiative, referendum, and charter amendments could be briefly described so the general public has a better understanding of the three. It was suggested that could be part of the education piece. Chair TenBruggencate briefly explained that an initiative is initiating a new piece of legislation; referendum is reversing a piece of legislation. Mr. Parachini added it is also important to invest some effort in disseminating the definition of a charter amendment; the language the Commission has adopted is reasonable, logical, and readily understandable. Mr. Furfaro pointed out when they reference (inaudible) on initiative and referendum, those areas cannot touch on the financial picture and /or zoning. Chair TenBruggencate explained there are restrictions in the Charter on certain kinds of public functions that cannot be addressed through that process. Mr. Furfaro further pointed out you cannot introduce something that is the financial picture while the Charter says the Council has to have a Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 _. SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION balanced budget. Chair TenBruggencate advised the Commission they will have another shot at this proposal because once a ballot question is approved, it will go up to the County Attorney to check for legalities and then it comes back to the Commission. Ms. Stiglmeier agreed that it is imperative to educate the public on initiative and referendum. Chair TenBruggencate noted that past Commissions have not been that involved in the educational process, but this group seems to be interested and they should all play an active role when it comes time for that. Motion to approve the proposed ballot language carried 5:0 Mr. Guy moved to approve the proposed ballot question on clarifying a charter amendment and the process for a proposed petition. Ms. Stiglmeier seconded the motion. Mr. Guy said the proposal feels like two different questions; one is what a charter amendment is and the second is to let the county clerk make the decision. Chair TenBruggencate asked Attorney Dureza if the two parts were sufficiently different that they ought to be separate charter amendments. Mr. Guy asked if the question should read as two different questions. Attorney Dureza said the ballot question addresses both to which Mr. Guy asked if they were taking too much into one question. Attorney Dureza said the Commission had asked about that before and based on what his research produced, as long as the question is not so confusing as to give whoever is voting an unclear understanding of what it is, then the ballot question is okay. This ballot question is clear enough so as to not cause confusion, but if the Commission wants to take a separate approach and ask the questions separately that is your decision. Mr. Guy then asked the Commission if they wanted to separate the two questions to strengthen the Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION chance of passing them. Mr. Parachini felt that would be a big mistake because you are then asking people to vote yes or no on defining a charter amendment, then to vote yes or no on how petitions will be processed. If the definition is passed but the process is not, then nothing has been accomplished. There is no means of determining whether the definition of a charter amendment that is enacted has been respected. The whole role of the County Clerk is to assure it is legitimately a charter amendment. Mr. Guy thought it would help to clarify what a charter amendment is if there is an argument down the road. Attorney Dureza said as a side issue he had said earlier that they can combine them, but now thinks the second part could be clearer because it implies that you are not changing it but just clarifying it. What you are really doing is amending the procedure for proposed petition charter amendments. Instead of using "clarify" maybe say "shall be amended to" and say what that is to sufficiently give the readers a clear understanding of what they are voting on. You can still choose to combine it into one question. Mr. Parachini said they could clarify it by changing "clarify" to "revise"; the ballot question language could read "and shall the processing of proposed petition charter amendments also be revised ". Chair TenBruggencate said if they do that they might want to include words placing the decision in the hands of the County Clerk. Mr. Parachini suggested saying "revised to ensure the petition fits the definition of a charter amendment ". Mr. Guy said currently the process is the petition goes to the County Council, but we are solidifying that it goes to the County Clerk. Mr. Parachini said they adopted language that says "upon filing of such petition the county clerk shall examine it to see whether it is a valid charter amendment ". Attorney Dureza suggested saying "and shall the processing of proposed petition charter amendments be revised to enable the county clerk to determine whether a proposal is a filed charter amendment" should accurately capture what the Commission is doing. Mr. Guy agreed the Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 i • SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION have to establish what the change is. Chair TenBruggencate disagreed with Mr. Parachini on the subject of it would be bad if we got the first half and not the second half because the more important thing is to ensure that we make it really clear what a charter amendment is, which would have resolved the problem the last time. It was not as important to the Chair whether the County Clerk does it or the Council does, but he was happy to be selecting some process; on the other hand he was prepared to vote on it as it stands. Ms. Stiglmeier thinks it should be separated and if the voters have a clear idea of what a charter amendment is, even if the second part is not passed, then the County Clerk and the voters would have a better idea of what constitutes a charter amendment. Mr. Guy agreed that whoever makes the decision, they will have a clear definition of a charter amendment to base their decision on. Mr. Parachini said failing everything else, you are handing any court that might review such a decision a much clearer sense of what it is, although our objective should be clear enough as to the definition of the process that we prevent litigation rather than encourage it. Mr. Guy said he would like to make a motion amending his motion in order to separate the two questions and add the language the Attorney suggested for the second question. Mr. Parachini pointed out that the voters would be asked to vote on a 3rd item which is the signature requirement. Mr. Guy amended his motion to separate the proposed ballot question into 2 questions and to add the language proposed by the Attorney. Ms. Stiglmeier seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye -Guy; Nay - Parachini; Nay - Stack; Aye - Stiglmeier; Nay- TenBruggencate Motion failed 2:3 Chair TenBruggencate said back to the language as presented, Mr. Stack said he would support this ballot question, however the wording is clumsy; the word "clarified" is used twice and questioned how it was being clarified Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and who was clarifying it. Chair TenBruggencate said the voters will have an explanatory document on election day or in their ballot envelopes to which Staff said it might not necessarily be in the ballot envelope due to the weight. Mr. Parachini suggested substituting "specified" for "clarified" in the first half of the sentence. The proposed language from Attorney Dureza for the second half of the sentence was "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 ". Mr. Guy said he liked the wording, but thought they were risking the definition in the first half because people are not going to want the County Clerk to have the final say in this and will not support this amendment to which we will lose that first half. Mr. Guy moved to adopt the Attorney's language for the back half of the two part question and to change the word from "clarified" to "specified" in the first half of the question. Mr. Stack seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye -Guy; Aye - Parachini; Aye - Stack; Aye- Stiglmeier; Aye- TenBruggencate Motion carried 5:0 Announcements Next Meeting: Monday, September 28, 2015 — 4:00 p.m. Chair TenBruggencate requested the subject of districting be placed on the September agenda. Adjournment Chair TenBruggencate adjourned the meeting at 4:41 p.m. Charter Review Commission Open Session August 24, 2015 Submitted by: i Barbara Davis, Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. () Approved with amendments. See minutes of Reviewed and Approved by: meeting. Jan TenBruggencate, Chair