Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_1128_Minutes Open_DRAFTCOUNTY oFKqUq, aB'E'FVY916�p'�I'i4oeld Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Board/Committee: I CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date November 28, 2016 Location Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/213 Start of Meeting: 3:00 pm I End of Meeting: 3:45 pm Present Chair Allan Parachini; Vice Chair Ed Justus. Members: Merilee (Mia) Ako; Michael Perel; Russell Wong. Also: Deputy County Attorney Adam Roversi; Boards & Commissions Office Staff. Support Clerks Barbara Davis and Darcie Agaran; Administrator Jay Furfaro Excused Members Patrick Stack; Cheryl Stiglmeier Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair Parachini called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm with 5 Commissioners present Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of September 26, 2016 Mr. Justus moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Perel/Ms. Ako seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Business CRC 2016-18 Review and discussion of the final results of the charter amendments proposed on the 2016 general election ballot Chair Parachini asked Deputy Attorney Roversi to make some observations about questions received on the ballot questions. Attorney Roversi said the ballot question people had concerns about did not pass so it is a moot point now, but for the Commission's knowledge it might be worth conveying. Forwarded to my office there were two written complaints and I was also aware of other general complaints in particular about the ballot question relating to initiative and referendum and charter. The issue that seemed to concern everybody is that there were 6 proposed amendments in the public information but there were actually seven ballot questions. That there wasn't a one-to-one correspondence of proposed amendments and questions some people went so far as to suggest that Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION would make the proposed amendments invalid. Attorney Roversi noted the first person to complain was prior Commissioner TenBruggencate and a formal written opinion was sent to him which opined that the manner the Commission presented its educational materials and the way the things appeared on the ballot satisfied the letter of the law. There was nothing unlawful about it and it wasn't my position as the County Attorney to debate with the Commission about the logic of precisely how it was presented. That was a subjective choice that the Commission debated and considered the pros and cons and elected to do it the way you did it. It was lawful but I wanted to let everyone know there was significant concern among people in the community. It could have become a bigger issue but it is a bit moot since it didn't pass. But if it had passed and somebody wanted to that could have given them grounds to drag us to court to fight about it. If hindsight being twenty-twenty it would be good to have that one to one correspondence between proposed amendment and numbered question so it simply erases the possibility for this kind of controversy in the future. I understand the reason it was done but wanted to make the Commission aware that there were concerns about it in the community. There was also a South Shore resident who emailed back and forth quite a few times and I am also just tangentially aware that people on KKCR Radio made quite an issue of it in some of their public shows going so far as to suggest it was a plot to confuse the public and sneak things through. Chair Parachini added and to surreptitiously seize power from the Mayor was another one he heard. Chair Parachini thought this discussion was valuable because it is part of the legacy we leave to whoever follows us. Chair Parachini asked if anyone had any regrets in hindsight in the way we did it. Mr. Furfaro said the way it was discussed for a couple of months was the fact you weren't giving them individual choices. Your proposal was to Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION change both to the same equation of ten percent. It was all or no change at all which is why it was a single question and it was Jan TenBruggencate who argued the verbiage on this to start with. I agree with what Attorney Roversi is telling us that we should go with individual questions. The question was posed should they both be at ten percent. Not can you choose this one to be thirty percent and this one to be ten percent — it was posed as they should both be the same thus the one question. It either passed or it didn't pass for both of them. Chair Parachini also realized after the election that one of the issues we never discussed or that never occurred to any of us is that language defining what a charter amendment is, is case law language. That is what the law is no matter what. With the charter amendment failing, the outcome would very likely be the same when you have a future controversy over a charter amendment - someone would go in and say this isn't a charter amendment and go in for a declaratory judgment. Mr. Justus briefly referred to the `Ghana amendment and thought the intent was basically anything could be a charter amendment and that language did not violate the charter. The idea is if you have that defining what a charter amendment is it at least makes the process clear so the County does not have to entertain what is or is not a charter amendment. To echo what the Administrator was saying about stating questions individually that was also something I brought up about that amendment and a charter amendment might have passed if it was a stand-alone question. The other was the process of having the clerk be............it could have passed if it was a stand-alone. People probably voted down the county clerk thing because the two separate questions were lumped together as one issue. Chair Parachini said he went through the numbers and both amendments lost in every precinct. Mr. Furfaro said he was the Council Chair when Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION they went through this question with the clerk's authority and there was legally substantial rationale for the reason it is now. Also that was the group (Kaua`i Rising) that was trying to counter the GMO issue and they in fact expected the legal work to be done by the County Clerk's Office and the County Attorney's Office, which if they initiated something like that it should be on their efforts and with their people — not legal consultation from the Attorney's Office. Asked how to read the (precinct vote) form, Mr. Furfaro said since he made the form he would be glad to tell them how to read it. Across the left hand side are the tabulations by precincts and by districts so the North Shore is all 14. It is then broken up by Hanalei, Princeville, Kilauea, et cetera. The one in yellow is the one that deals with the correct grammar and you can see how each precinct voted and what is a yes vote is "Y" and what is a no vote is "N" and the `B" is the blank ballot. It has been discussed before what should be the disposition of the blank ballots but they are not counted; they are just being reported. Kauai had a 61.4 percent voter turnout for the whole island. We had 27,225 actual registered voters vote out of a possible 44,323. Chair Parachini said what confused him was there were 3 categories reported separately and then the totals on the right hand side and asked what are the 3 columns that are broken out? Mr. Justus responded Precinct Turnout, Absentee Walk-in and Absentee Mail -in. Mr. Furfaro further explained that the ballots were separately broken by districts not precincts. Mr. Perel suggested on future documents that the descriptive column be placed on each page so we can follow it without having to go back to see the references on the first page. Asked if there were any surprises with the results, Mr. Justus said he was not surprised with the percentages or defining a charter amendment because Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION they were a bit too lengthy of a question and confusing in a way. He was surprised that the permanent charter commission passed as there was a lot of unrest in the newspaper about us trying to steal democracy away from the people. Mr. Justus said he noticed that one seemed to be the only one that didn't pass by a 50 percent majority and made him think about what Commissioner Ako brought up at other meetings about the importance of getting the people who vote blank to actually vote on the matter. Would it be a worthwhile proposed amendment in the future that charter amendment questions have to have a 50 percent threshold in order to amend; otherwise you are amending the charter by a minority opinion rather than a majority opinion. Chair Parachini said if you consider the Fire Chief duties and renaming the Civil Defense Agency to be pretty innocuous amendments still 7189 people voted against renaming the Civil Defense Agency and 6985 people voted against clarifying the Fire Chief s and the Fire Department's situation — what are we missing here? How does that much of negative interest get mobilized to things you would think anybody would go for? Mr. Wong said he watched a lot of programs that aggressively said if you don't understand it vote no so whether it was valuable or not to you just vote no because you are changing your County charter. Who votes no on grammatical issues? I thought the Zoning Board was going to be a lot closer than it was; evidentially the people of Kauai have some issues with permits and zoning and that was what stuck out to me. Mr. Furfaro said he had a tendency to agree with Mr. Wong. There was consensus that the two most confusing questions were the ones that were defeated. Mr. Perel noted that the no votes were a little up and down but still pretty consistent throughout. Ms. Ako said it gets back to if we are going to make any changes to our charter we have to do a lot of education. Mr. Justus added that he thinks the reason a lot of people are so aware of what happens on the Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Council level it because it is televised and even if they don't understand the entirety of the charter they will understand an issue because they will be on a continuing education of what is going on. Since the Charter Commission is now an ongoing fixture maybe televising it would be a really good way to help people understand what the charter is and understand the issues and perhaps be more inclined to participate. Chair Parachini suggested that the next Charter Commission could perhaps prepare a handout that explains what the charter is, what its purpose is, what its history is so there is something to refer people to for a basic understanding of what this is all about. Mr. Wong said he was only a short timer but he thought (the Commission) in general did a good job, but the one thing we learned as the County Attorney suggested — one issue and it has to be well written. When you have multiple issues it gets confusing so if there is a recommendation to the next board it would be to not have multiple decision points in a charter amendment. Chair Parachini said he got an earful about the Commission's decision not to present pros and cons to which Ms. Ako said we shouldn't — that is up to them to decide and not for us. Ms. Ako said she was disappointed when The Garden Island asked for information on the charter questions and towards the ending of the article you kind of knew where you folks stood when I thought we should just be neutral. We just present what it is and it is up to the public to decide if it has merit or not. Mr. Wong said if anybody talks to him he has to say the Commission supports all the recommendations or they would not be offered to you. To say we are offering this suggestion but here is why you shouldn't vote for it -we made our decision as a Commission and we have to say the reasons why we are recommending it and you decide if it makes sense to you. Ms. Ako did not feel they should even say as a Commission they support it but just this is it. Mr. Justus said to follow up with the concept of passing something on to the Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION next Commission perhaps they should have some sort of memorandum or written suggestions or even just a summary of what the Commission's activities have been. Maybe what was proposed, what went on to the ballots so the next people have some history —just the whole span of the existing Charter Commission since 2007. Mr. Furfaro said he has 6 cases of records in his office with all of that. If we do something like that it should be for the most current piece — for this election. Chair Parachini asked over ten years, how many charter amendments been on the ballot? Mr. Furfaro said from what he has reviewed, over a twenty year period they have had districting on 4 times and it never passed. Questions that often come up deal with the Planning Department's procedures and the appeals. Ms. Davis added that districting and council terms have come up over and over and over. Mr. Furfaro further explained some of the issues that come up over TVRs and issues people have in the grandfathering of it which is a pretty hot issue. The conversation veered off the agenda and on to districting. Mr. Justus thought the Attorney's opinion about keeping questions separate might be good to forward to the upcoming Charter Commission. Chair Parachini thanked Jay and Barbara and the rest of the staff in the Boards and Commissions Office for the work you have done consistently on our behalf and it is very, very much appreciated. Announcements Noting there was no further business for the Commission, Chair Parachini stated there would not be a December meeting. Mr. Furfaro took note of this Commission sun -setting and two Commissioners will have served a complete six years. The Commission will begin with 7 new commissioners as a result of the outcome of the recent election. All of you are not able to be considered for that new Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION commission. It is to be a new commission and the two who have served six years need to wait a full year before you can get reappointed to another commission. For those that have served two or just one year you may be considered for other boards and commissions, but the new commission is completely newly appointed for the designated number of years. It is a permanent charter review commission so the nice thing is we won't wind up with these choppy term endings. You will all be hearing from the Mayor and my office with a "mahalo" and a little recognition for your service to the Commission. By March we will have seven additional vacancies on various boards and commissions. If you have served the full six year term you must wait the one year. If you have served a partial then you can be nominated to serve on another commission. Attorney Roversi said having not done any research on the matter, is Mr. Furfaro suggesting that the commissioners who haven't been timed out effectively by six years cannot request reappointment to this commission. Mr. Furfaro said he was not suggesting that at all. I am saying the two that served the complete six years must wait at least one year for any commission. Attorney Roversi said that sounds correct. Mr. Justus asked if the Administration is deciding not to reappoint the other existing members to the upcoming commission. Mr. Furfaro said they would have to go through a new nomination and a new interview with the new Council ifthey want to start up on this one. Adjournment Mr. Perel moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:45 p.m. Ms. Ako seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0 Submitted by: Barbara Davis, Support Clerk Charter Review Commission Open Session November 28, 2016 Page 9 () Approved as circulated. () Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.