Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC_2021_1122_Notice_Agenda-Packet.pdf CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION VIRGINIA KAPALI, COMMISSIONER MARISSA SANDBLOM, COMMISSIONER JAN TENBRUGGENCATE, COMMISSIONER REID KAWANE, CHAIR LORI KOGA, VICE CHAIR REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Monday, November 22, 2021 3:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter Microsoft Teams Conferencing Information Click on the link below or enter the url in your network browser to join on your computer or mobile app by VIDEO: https://bit.ly/3qv6yus Or Dial phone number and enter conference ID to call in and join by AUDIO: Phone: +1 469-848-0234 United States, Dallas Phone Conference ID: 677983644# This meeting will be held via Microsoft Teams conferencing only. Members of the public are invited to join this meeting by using the link above or calling the number above with the conference ID information. You may testify during the video conference or submit written testimony in advance of the meeting via e-mail or mail. To avoid excessive noise/feedback, please mute your microphone except to testify. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES Open Session Minutes of October 25, 2021 PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMMUNICATION BUSINESS CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on meetings regarding proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting. CRC 2021-04 Discussion and possible action on Charter Initiatives of interest. PAGE 2 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION – November 22, 2021 CRC 2021-06 Discussion and possible action on proposing a Charter amendment relating to Ranked-Choice Voting. CRC 2021-08 Discussion and possible action on proposing a Charter amendment relating to Prosecutor Attorney vacancy. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Meeting: TBD ADJOURNMENT NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §92-7(a), the Board may, when deemed necessary, hold an executive session on any agenda item without written public notice if the executive session was not anticipated in advance. Any such executive session shall be held pursuant to HRS §92-4 and shall be limited to those items described in HRS §92-5(a). Discussions held in Executive Session are closed to the public. cc: Hugo Cabrera, Deputy County Attorney PUBLIC COMMENTS and TESTIMONY SPEAKER REGISTRATION Prior to the Day of the Meeting: Persons wishing to testify are requested to register their name, phone number, and agenda item via email at asegreti@kauai.gov; or by calling 808-241-4917. On the Day of the Meeting: Persons who have not registered to testify by the time the Commission meeting begins will be given the opportunity to speak on an item following oral testimonies of registered speakers. Each speaker is limited to a three-minute presentation on each item. WRITTEN TESTIMONY Prior to the Day of the Meeting: Testimony may be emailed: asegreti@kauai.gov, or mailed: County of Kauai, Office of Boards and Commissions, Board of Ethics, 4444 Rice St., Ste. 300, Lihue, HI 96766. PAGE 3 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION – November 22, 2021 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IF YOU NEED AN AUXILIARY AID/SERVICE OR OTHER ACCOMMODATION DUE TO A DISABILITY, OR AN INTERPRETER FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PERSONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF BOARDS & COMMISSIONS AT (808) 241-4917 OR ASEGRETI@KAUAI.GOV AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. REQUESTS MADE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO FULFILL YOUR REQUEST. UPON REQUEST, THIS NOTICE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS SUCH AS LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, OR ELECTRONIC COPY. COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION . Board/Commission: CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Date October 25, 2021 Location Teleconference Start of Meeting: 3:07 p.m. End of Meeting: 4:10 p.m. Present Chair Reid Kawane, Vice Chair Lori Koga. Commissioners: Virginia Kapali, Marissa Sandblom, Jan TenBruggencate. Also: Teresa Tumbaga, Deputy County Attorney. Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Administrator Ellen Ching, Administrative Specialist Anela Segreti. Excused Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Call To Order Chair Reid Kawane, called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. Roll Call Roll Call: Commissioner Kapali-here Commissioner Sandblom-here Commissioner TenBruggencate-here Vice Chair Koga-here Chair Kawane -here Quorum: 5 commissioners present Agenda Commissioner TenBruggencate moved to approve the agenda as it stands. Commissioner Sandblom seconded. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Motion carried 5:0 Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Minutes Open Session Minutes of September 27, 2021 Commissioner TenBruggencate moved to approve the Minutes of September 28, 2020; Vice Chair Koga seconded. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Motion carried 5:0. Public Testimony None. No Action Communication CRC 2021-07 Email received October 5, 2021 from Lonnie Sykos to the Charter Review Commission and the Board of Ethics asking what is acceptable ethical actions by our officials. Chair Kawane entertained a motion to receive for the record. Commissioner TenBruggencate acknowledged reading the letter and stated that there was a number of issues Mr. Sykos raised. Commissioner TenBruggencate moved to receive item CRC 2021-07. Commissioner Kapali seconded. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays Motion carried 5:0. Business CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on meetings regarding proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting. Commissioner TenBruggencate stated that he is not interested in launching any proposal on districting. He acknowledged that there will likely be some interested, and he’s prepared to wait and see if anything comes in. Commissioner Kapali believes that this was discussed last time and that there was a lot of discussion on it, including testimony. She stated that it did not make the list and asked if they go back and revisit this item. She questioned their role in continuing the discussion. Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Ellen Ching, Administrator, stated that two years ago we received something in May regarding districting and was discussed, however at the point it was on the agenda, Burt Lyons testified that he was in favor of districting, but not of the proposal that was presented. The commission decided not to put on ballot and would place on agenda when met again. Commissioner Kapali stated that she believes this might receive some traction this time around and perhaps as commissioners they may want to bring it up for discussion or wait as Commissioner TenBruggencate suggested for someone to bring up. Commissioner TenBruggencate stated that he is happy to discuss this issue. He is concerned that most districting proposals mean that residents vote on fewer members of their County Council, whether it’s just those in their district, or just in their district plus 1 at-large. He acknowledged that there has been a fair number of people who said they like being able to vote on all. He mentioned a model in Maui County where districts are established, but the whole island votes on every person, and they lead their district. He shared an example of Akama, who was Lanai district candidate who sometimes lost on his own island but was seated because he got enough votes county wide. He’s not sure that’s an adequate remedy for the issue of providing district representation. He also commented that there are suggestions that we have 3 representative districts so we would not have to do separate reapportionment. We could use what has been established for the State House, but that doesn’t divide equally into seven, on solution is to have one voted in at-large or to increase Council size to nine or reduce to six. He believes either proposal would have a lot of opposition. Could have each candidate state which district they reside and seat by district. He feels that we have a small Council and if there is a problem in one district the whole Council shows up, no one can say it’s not their district. He stated he hasn’t seen a proposal that stands out. He stated that their charge as the Commission is to identify changes to make the County run better and he hasn’t seen it yet. Chair Kawane stated that he agrees with Commissioner TenBruggencate. Commissioner Sandblom asked about the history of the proposals. Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Administrator Ching stated that she would need to research more, but that it was on the agenda, June 22, 2020, and following agenda, and that there is a history of districting being placed on the ballot and not passing. Commissioner TenBruggencate stated that it was placed on the ballot several times and has always lost, but by smaller amounts in the most recent ones. He stated that there has been an argument to give it another chance as there seems to be a desire for districting. If most of the Commission felt it was a good idea, they can consider it, but they also need to pick the right one as there are several. Commissioner Kapali recalled that she was looking at trying to build a wider group of candidates for County Council and trying to look at more of the younger generation to become involved. She was thinking that it may encourage younger generation to get involved in County Council if it was a smaller representation, neighborhood, community, district, rather than the whole island. Commissioner Sandblom asked if part of the thinking was part-time councilmembers. Commissioner Kapali believes that was discussed. She is looking at what can get younger generation involved and progressively move forward. Commissioner TenBruggencate responded to Commissioner Sandblom’s question that some members have worked a full-time job while serving, some served full-time. The intent may have been that it was a part-time job, but the Charter doesn’t say that. May want to look at prohibiting outside employment, would we benefit from a member that does the daily things we all due versus a full-time politician. Administrator Ching stated that the question of districting came up in 1992, 1996 and 2006. Staff shared the proposal from 1982 by Council (on file), and the other years as well. She stated that districting goes hand in hand with re-apportionment. In 1990, Council also proposed a non- specific districting amendment to start in 1992. She stated that the 1996 proposal has 5 districts Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION which the latest proposal does not. Commissioner TenBruggencate went over the proposed amendments stating that the first one was 3 by district and 4 at-large, this one is 5 district and 2 at-large and requires the County appropriate commission to select the size of the district. Commissioner Sandblom asked if we had five districts would it also change the House of Representatives. Commissioner TenBruggencate answered no. Administrator Ching answered that on the State side the reapportionment is in line with the Census Bureau. If the County was not going to follow State would need a reapportionment committee, and it may have to because it’s based on the census numbers in that “district”. The State is doing a reapportionment. She recapped the four times that it has come up, 1982, 1992, 1996, 2006. Commissioner TenBruggencate noted that the first and last ones, you would vote for 5, 4 at- large and one in your own district. The oldest and newest proposals that made the ballot. Local reapportionment could mimic the State, as long as it remained 3, but if Kauai wanted more would require a local reapportionment committee would need to be formed. Every 10 years is a new census, and it would be looked at every 10 years to make sure it covers same number of people. Administrator Ching shared the proposal last submitted to the Charter Commission in 2020. She went over that it talked about 9 members, 3 for each of the Council districts that mimic House of Reps. Commissioner TenBruggencate that they did not remember that sometimes one of the Kauai districts also has a piece of another island. If they were to do this proposal, they would have to put language in that as long as there’s three full districts on Kauai this works, if not would need Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION to reapportion ourselves. Vice Chair Koga asked if it addressed if a Council member moved. Administrator Ching mentioned that it has come up in the House. Commissioner Kapali asked if our 7 is a problem? Vice Chair Koga stated that she feels that everybody is getting a piece of the pie and no district is neglected. Administrator Ching also added that there is a cost to adding more council members. Commissioner Kapali stated that with this in mind and what Commissioner TenBruggencate stated as the role of the Commission, to put on ballot what they feel helps the County Government run more efficiently. She feels that we currently are doing the best it can with the dynamics of our community and cost is tremendous once you add more, then let it be. She would not bring it up as a proposal for a ballot question. Administrator Ching asked how the Commission wants staff to proceed. Commissioner TenBruggencate made a motion to defer and get the ballot question history. He also suggested that the authors of the last proposal be invited to the next meeting. Administrator Ching also suggested inviting the Burt Lyons also to be invited and to include the testimony received from the last proposal. Commissioner TenBruggencate also suggested tracking down a report done previously regarding districting. Public meetings were held, and it was found that it should the way it is. Commissioner TenBruggencate moved to defer CRC 2020-17 and get more information from staff regarding the ballot question history and reach out to Donovan Cabebe, Jonathan Jay, and Burt Lyons. Commissioner Kapali seconded. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 5:0 Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION CRC 2021-04 Discussion and possible action on Charter Initiatives of interest. Staff Anela Segreti notified Commissioners that staff have not received to date any proposals, and that it would be on most agendas this month. Administrator Ching elaborated that some of the Commissions deferred the item this month and asked for a link to the agenda and itemized sections that they may want to look at in the Charter regarding terms, etc. They will decide in November if they want to send out a proposal. She has asked administration if they have any proposals to bring forward, she will reach out again. She brought up that the Commission may want to look at the Special Election and what can be done to avoid the cost of it for the County. She also reminded them that the public was not happy about a Councilmember was charged and continued to receive a salary. Nothing has been brought up, but it is something she has gotten feedback on. Commissioner TenBruggencate moved to defer and keep on agenda CRC 2021-04 for the next meeting. Commissioner Sandblom seconded. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 5:0 CRC 2021-06 Discussion and possible action on proposing a Charter amendment relating to Ranked-Choice Voting. Commissioner TenBruggencate stated that this was his proposal but has changed his view on it. It was a response to the cost of the Special Election and the situation that there are two candidates, and both need to be voted on in primary and general. He went on to explain ranked- choice voting. He stated that it avoids the situation of not having a majority. In discussion with Elections, the automated counting system is not able to do this and would need to be done manually. It takes a lot of manpower to count the ballots. One proposal to address the cost would be to re-adopt the 50% + 1 and not have to hold a second election. Another would be to if a vacancy occurs it is filled by some process with nomination by the administration and approval of Council until the next regularly scheduled election. He no longer feels that ranked- choice voting is the best option but should consider some others. Commissioner Kapali agreed that this is too much at this time. Commissioner Kapali moved to table CRC 2021-06. Commissioner TenBruggencate seconded. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 5:0 Charter Review Commission Open Session October 25, 2021 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair Kawane asked Commissioner TenBruggencate to work with staff on alternative proposals. Commissioner TenBruggencate stated that he is ready to let this go and see what other commissions may bring forward. Commissioner Kapali stated that she liked the idea of filling the vacancy with a process until the next election. She is looking at efficiency as well as cost. Commissioner TenBruggencate volunteered to work with staff on it. Commissioner Kapali moved to look at alternative method, do research and to come up with something. Commissioner TenBruggencate seconded. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 5:0 Announcements Next Meeting: November 22, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner TenBruggencate stated that the Commission usually cancels the December meeting, but wonders if they should have an early meeting in the month in case they need to review proposals. The December meeting has been cancelled, but they may have a special meeting if needed. Adjournment Hearing no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10pm. Submitted by: __________________________________ Reviewed and Approved by: _________________________________________ Anela Segreti, Administrative Specialist Reid Kawane, Chair ( ) Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Council Districts ARTICLE I THE COUNTY AND ITS GOVERNMENT Section 1.03. County Elections A. Nonpartisan elections. County elections shall be conducted in accordancewith the state election laws insofar as applicable, but all elective county officers shall be elected by nonpartisan elections. B. Offices of the mayor and prosecuting attorney. 1. For the offices of mayor and prosecuting attorney, the names of thetwo candidates receiving the highest number of votes for these offices in the primary election shall be placed on the ballot for the general election. However, if there is only one candidate for each of said offices, such candidate shall be elected in the primary election. 2. At the general election, the candidates receiving the highest numberof votes for mayor and prosecuting attorney shall be elected. 3. Tie votes. In the event of a tie vote for mayor and prosecutingattorney in the primary or general election, the winner shall be determined by a method of chance as determined by the county clerk. C. Office of [at-large] councilmembers. 1. For [at-large] council offices, [two] up to six candidates for eachvacant [at-large] council office receiving the highest number of votes in the primary election within each council district shall be placed on the ballot for the general election. 2. At the general election, the three candidates receiving the highestnumber of votes [for each vacant at-large council office] within each council district shall be elected. 3. Tie votes. In the event of a tie vote for the last remaining [at-large]council office within each council district in the primary election, the candidates receiving the same number of votes shall be placed on the ballot for the general election. In the event of a tie vote for the last remaining [at-large] council office within each council district in the general election, the winner shall be determined by a method of chance as determined by the county clerk. CRC 2020-17 Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Council Districts ARTICLE III COUNTY COUNCIL Section 3.01. Legislative Power. The legislative power of the county shall be vested in and exercised by the county council, except as otherwise provided by this charter. Section 3.02. Composition. There shall be a council of [seven] nine members elected [at-large] by the qualified voters of their respective council district, with three members elected from each of three council districts. Council districts shall correspond with Hawai‘i state representative districts as apportioned under Article IV of the Hawaii Constitution. Section 3.03. Terms. The terms of office of councilmembers shall be for two years beginning at twelve o’clock meridian on the first working day of December following their election. No person shall be elected to the office of councilmember for more than four consecutive two year terms. (Amended 1980, 1984, 2006) Section 3.04. Qualifications. A. To be eligible for the council, a person must be a citizen of the United States and must have been a duly qualified elector of [the county] their district for at least two years immediately preceding such person’s election or appointment. B. Any councilmember who removes said councilmember’s residence from [the county] their district or is convicted of a felony shall immediately forfeit the office. C. The council shall be the judge of the qualifications of its members and for that purpose shall have power to subpoena witnesses, take testimony and require the production of records. Decisions made by the council in the exercise of the powers granted in this subsection shall be subject to review by the Fifth Circuit Court of the State of Hawai‘i. Section 3.05. Vacancy in Office. In the event a vacancy occurs in the council, the remaining members of the council shall appoint a successor with the required qualifications to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term. If the council is unable to fill a vacancy within thirty days after its occurrence, the mayor shall make the appointment to such vacancy. The foregoing provisions shall apply in the event a person elected as councilmember dies before taking office; provided, however, that the vacancy shall be filled by the newly elected council within thirty days after the beginning of the new term. Section 3.06 Compensation. The salary of each councilmember shall be established in accordance with the provisions of article XXIX of this charter. (Amended 1988, 2006) Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Council Districts Section 3.07. Organization of Council; Officers; Rules; Employees. A. The council shall meet in the council room at the county building or in the Kaua‘i War Memorial Convention Hall for its organization promptly after its inauguration and swearing-in ceremony at which time it shall elect one of its members as chair and presiding officer of the council. Until such time as the chair is elected, the mayor shall preside at the council meetings, provided that the mayor shall not have a vote. The council shall also elect one of its members as vice-chair who shall act as the presiding officer in the event of the chair’s absence. The council shall appoint a presiding officer pro tempore from its members in the event of the absence of both the chair and vice-chair. A majority of the entire membership of the council shall constitute a quorum and, except as otherwise provided, the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership shall be necessary to take any action. (Amended 1984) B. The council shall adopt such rules as it may deem necessary for the organization of committees and the transaction of its business. C. The council shall keep a journal of its proceedings. D. 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. E. The council shall meet regularly at least twice in every month at such times as the council may prescribe by rule. Special meetings may be held on the call of the mayor, chair, or by [five] six or more members. All council and council committee meetings shall be open to the public except as provided for in chapter 92, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. (Amended 2008) F. Council Staff. The council may appoint the necessary personnel for the transaction of its business, and such appointments shall be subject to the civil service and classification requirements. The chair of the council shall be the administrative officer of the staff employees. (Amended 2008) Section 3.08. Mayor May Appear Before Council. The mayor may propose in writing any motion, resolution, or ordinance, or amendments thereto, but shall have no right to vote thereon. Section 3.09. Eminent Domain. The council shall by resolution determine and declare the necessity of taking property for public purposes, describing the property and stating the uses to which it shall be devoted. Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Council Districts Section 3.10. Annual Budget and Capital Program. The council shall enact an annual budget ordinance, which shall include both the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same. The council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget. Section 3.11. Adoption of Pay Plan. The council by ordinance shall appropriate the salaries of all officers and employees who are exempt from civil service in accordance with the provisions of section 7.05E and article XXIX of this charter. All other officers and employees shall be classified and paid in accordance with law. (Amended 1984, 1988, 2006) Section 3.12. Audit. A. Financial audit. At least once every two years and at any other time as may be deemed necessary, the council shall cause an independent audit of all county funds and accounts to be made by a certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants. The scope of the audit shall be in accordance with the terms of a written contract to be signed by the chair which shall provide for the completion of the audit within a reasonable time. If the state makes such an audit, the council may accept it as satisfying the requirements of this section. The audit shall be a matter of public record. B. Performance audit. To ensure and determine whether government services are being efficiently, effectively, and economically delivered, the council may at any time provide for a performance audit of any or all of the offices, agencies, departments, programs, and operations for which the county is responsible. The council may exercise its authority to conduct performance audits through the hiring of a qualified in-house auditor, through the hiring of a qualified contract auditor, or both. The scope of the audit shall be in accordance with the terms of an assignment referred to the office of the county clerk by the county council or a written contract to be approved by the council and signed by the presiding officer of the council, but may include the following activities: (1) Examination and testing of county offices’, agencies’, programs’, and departments’ implementation processes to determine whether the laws, policies, and programs of the county are being carried out in the most effective, efficient, and economical manner. (2) Examination and testing of the internal control systems of offices, agencies, programs, operations, and departments to ensure that such systems are properly designed to safeguard public assets against loss from waste, fraud, error, to promote efficient operations, and to encourage adherence to prescribed management policies. Said assignment or contract shall encourage recommendations for changes in the organization, management, and processes which will produce greater efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the programs or operations carried out by Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Council Districts the respective county agencies, departments, offices, programs, and operations and shall provide for the completion of the audit within one calendar year. A copy of the audit report shall be filed with the county clerk and shall be public record. (Amended 2000) Section 3.13. Creation of General Debt. A. The council by the affirmative vote of at least [five] six members may authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Hawai‘i. B. Each bond authorization shall specify the purpose for which moneys are to be borrowed and the maximum amount of bonds to be issued for that purpose. C. Notwithstanding any limitation contained in this charter, the council may accept and receive participating or nonparticipating federal and state loans for public improvement projects or other purposes, the aggregate of which, together with any bonded indebtedness outstanding, shall not at any time exceed the total bonded indebtedness authorized by the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i. D. The council may provide for the refunding of general obligation bonds. Section 3.14. Creation of Special Assessment Debt. The council may authorize the issuance of improvement bonds to finance assessable public improvements in the manner provided by law. Section 3.15. Revenue Bond Indebtedness. The council may authorize the issuance of revenue bonds for the purpose of initiating, constructing, acquiring, extending, replacing, or otherwise improving any revenue-producing facility as provided by law. Section 3.16. Temporary Borrowing. A. The council may borrow money in any fiscal year in anticipation of revenues to be derived from taxes for that year, and for any of the purposes to which the revenues are appropriated. No such borrowing shall be in excess of 25 percent of the amount of the uncollected taxes of that year. B. When any warrants are presented to the county for payment, and the same are not paid for lack of funds, the director of finance shall issue a warrant note, equal in amount to the face value of the warrant or warrants so presented for payment. The warrant note shall be in a form and shall be due at a date prescribed by the director of finance. It shall bear interest at the lowest obtainable rate. The notes shall be a first charge on the moneys of any fund against which the warrants are issued. C. The council upon recommendation of the mayor may authorize the director of finance to obtain temporary loans from the state. Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to Council Districts Section 3.17. Investigation. The council or any authorized committee thereof shall have the power to conduct investigations of the operation of any agency or function of the county and any subject upon which the council may legislate. In investigations, the presiding officer shall have the right to administer oaths and in the name of the council to subpoena witnesses and compel the production of books and papers pertinent thereto. If any person subpoenaed as a witness or to produce any books or papers called for by the process of the council or committee shall fail or refuse to respond thereto, the circuit court upon request of the council shall have power to compel obedience to any process of the council and require such witness to answer questions put to the witness as aforesaid, and to punish, as a contempt of the court, any refusal to comply therewith without good cause shown therefor. False swearing by any witness shall constitute perjury and be punished as such, and whenever the council is satisfied that a witness has sworn falsely in any hearing or investigation, it shall report same to the county attorney for prosecution. In any investigation which concerns the alleged gross misconduct, or alleged criminal action on the part of any individual, such individual shall have the right to be represented by counsel, the right of reasonable cross-examination of witnesses, and the right to process of the council to compel the attendance of witnesses in the individual’s behalf. Section 3.18. Restrictions on County Council and Councilmembers. The council and its members shall not interfere with the administrative processes delegated to the mayor. Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor, and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately. Any willful violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the council shall be sufficient grounds for an action for the member’s removal from office. WRITTEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED FOR CRC 2020-17 Personal information has been redacted. From: To:Anela Segreti Subject:Opposed to Council Districting being on Nov. ballot Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 12:07:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Aloha: I would like to voice my opposition to Council Districting being on the November ballot. This issue has come up many times in the past and each time it is rejected because most of us don't want it. I am opposed to Council Districting anyway, I prefer all At Large. Very often when I vote for the Council members, I only select a few as I don't think the rest would be a good choice. At least now, we do have all seven who represent us all. Imagine if my District person(s) would be like someone who shall remain nameless but who is sitting in jail right now. And if the only Council member I think is doing a good job is representing a district other than mine. Just a bad idea all around. I also find it troublesome that Districting is being touted and supported by someone who is running for County Council. That would seem to be a conflict to me - he must have a ton of relatives in his district............. Right now I am stuck with a Representative for my district for whom I have never voted as I think he does not do a good job. But I have no choice as he is my district. I certainly don't need a repeat of that at the Council level. I respectfully request that this item NOT be placed on the ballot again. Been there, done that. Mahalo nui loa Carol Beardmore Virus-free. www.avast.com From: To:Anela Segreti Subject:CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 12:37:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. June 21, 2020 TO: County of Kauai Charter Review Commission {CRC} RE: Monday, June 22, 2020, Agenda Item CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting. Thank you for allowing me and the CabebeCan team to present our briefing and testimony. I support the adoption of districts for Kauai County, increasing the number of seats on the Kauai County Council from the current seven-members to a nine-member council, with each district electing three members to represent each district. This amendment is all about providing our community fair and equitable representation and access to government. Its a step in the direction of bringing better, more efficient governance to our island. Adopting state districting policy allows Kauai County Council Members to function in sync with state representatives. Increasing the council to nine seats increases opportunities for community members to participate in local governance and elect district focused representation. It increases the lines of communication between community members to our administrative bodies. One additional point to consider is that there are no budget increases as the current funds allocated to council payroll would be dispersed amongst the nine members. I believe we all can agree that now is the time to take action on what the community has considered and reconsidered before. That we can not return to a pre covid 19 world and that the general public's perception of government is that it is often unresponsive to the needs, wishes, and desires of the community. Allowing this amendment to go before the voters will show that the government is willing to work with people willing to take action now and not get in the way of where the government should get its guidance. The People. Why wait till later or sometime next year or beyond? Smart, logical, and well-planned action can be taken now. This proposal is well planed, sensible, and intelligent. It can help revitalize our economy, Respectfully, let the voters have a say in this matter. Sincerely yours, Donovan Kanani Cabebe From: To:Anela Segreti Subject:CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting Date: 2020-06-22 00:37 Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 2:33:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Subject: CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting Date: 2020-06-22 June 21, 2020 TO: County of Kauai Charter Review Commission {CRC} RE: Monday, June 22, 2020, Agenda Item CRC 2020-17 Discussion and possible action on proposed Charter amendment relating to Council Districting. I support the adoption of three districts for Kauai County, increasing the number of seats on the Kauai County Council from the current seven-members to a nine-member council, with each district electing three members to represent each district. I support equitable representation and access to government that represents each district. Adopting state districting policy allows Kauai County Council members to function in sync with state representatives and allow for more meaningful partnerships and opportunities for community engagement in those partnerships. I also support that there are no budget increases as the current funds allocated to council payroll would be dispersed amongst the nine members. In 2006 a districting proposal came. Wry close to passing but it was complicated. This proposal provides for direct representation in a less complicated system that is in sync with state representation districts. Please consider this proposal and let voters chose if districting is a better representation of our community. Sincerely, Kathleen Horgan County of Kauaʻi From: Tina Sakamoto Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 4:28 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@kauai.gov> Subject: Fw: Testimony in Opposition to Distric Elections- CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. Attempting to submit testimony. Please forward to Charter Review Commission asegret@kauai.gov (asegret@kauai.gov) Your message couldn't be delivered because the recipient's email server (outside Office 365) suspected that your message was spam. Mahalo ~~~ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: asegret@kauai.gov Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 4:07 PM Subject: Testimony in Opposition to District Elections- Meeting: County of Kauai Charter Review Commission Remote Meeting on June 20,.2020 at 3 p.m. or shortly after Lihue, Kauai, HI asegret@kauai.gov Agenda Item: Proposed Kauai County Council District Election Testifier: Tina Sakamoto PO Box 189 Lawai, HI 96765-0189 Phone Representing: Self Not a lobbyist, nor affiliated with any proclaimed group promoting legislation Opinion: Testimony Opposing Proposed Kauai County Council District Election ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TESTIMONY MY OBSERVATIONS: NO BROKE, NO TRY FIX A local news article stated that the County of Kauai Charter Review Commission is reconsidering a proposal to split Kauai into three (3) districts corresponding with the State House boundaries, with three (2) members each for a total of a nine-seat council. A two-year residency within a district of which the candidate would represent is a requirement. This proposal is to create geographic districts from which the Kauai County Council would be elected based on the district he/she resides. Similar measures to elect the council members by district rather than at-large were rejected by voters 1982, 1996, and 2006. The Kauai County Council continues to be elected at-large, thus representing the entire island rather than a specific district. MY OPINION: I support the current at-large county council election system for the following reasons: 1.Selection - The selection of an at-large candidate is from a broader island base. A Kauai voter may choose any candidate regardless of where the candidate resides and not be compromised by a geographical area. 2.Representation - Each at-large candidate represents the entire island, not just his/her own district. Each candidate may be more likely to take interest in the overall betterment of the entire island and all its people. 3.Accountability - The at-large candidate will be accountable to every person on Kauai, not a designated group of people from a slice of the island. A person may address a concern to any council member. 4.Cost - Running district elections will increase costs in personnel, production, tabulation, and resources. 5.Vote - The at-large candidate must garner the majority of the votes whereas a district candidate needs only more votes than an opponent. It is possible for a candidate in a district election to win if either unopposed or with a single vote. 6.Philosophy - By tradition and culture Kauai's diversity is its strength. Our Kauai philosophy is the "we" concept, what is best for all the people and what is best for the entire island. The at-large election system supports the "we" philosophy and encourages cohesiveness. District elections will change the concept of "we" to "me" and the practice will be what "I want" regardless of the discord and divisiveness in competing for limited resources. For these reasons it is my opinion that the current at-large system is the best choice for Kauai and I urge you to oppose districting. Mahalo, Tina Sakamoto ~~~ From: To:Anela Segreti Subject:Proposed Charter Amendment CRC 2020-17 Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 11:02:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. I support the Charter Review Commission CRC 2020-17, which would place on the ballot a proposal to establish Council districting for Kaua’i. With a nine seat Council, including three dedicated seats, citizen representation should be both better balanced and also would allow for closer citizen-Councilpersons relations within each of the three districts. Thank you for considering my opinion, Dana Bekeart, Kapa’a resident. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: To:Anela Segreti Subject:Correction for 2020-17 Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 11:20:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County of Kauai. Do not click links or open attachments even if the sender is known to you unless it is something you were expecting. From Dana Bekeart. After reading TGI article, it looks like the representation would be three per district. I believe this might create competing three horse-trading relations. Perhaps two per district and three at-large would work well. From:Anela Segreti To: Cc:Ellen Ching; Teresa Tumbaga Subject:FW: Message from Unknown sender (8088238162) Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 1:15:00 PM Attachments:VoiceMessage.wav image001.png image002.jpg Good Afternoon Commissioners, I returned Ms. Marge Dente’s call. She is not able to join the meeting today, but wanted to express some concerns she has regarding districting. She lives on Waipouli Rd. which is divided by District 14 on the North and District 15 on the South. She says that this causes confusion for police and in voting. She feels that this needs to be examined as to why this is. She feels that lines, borders for this road needs to be either completely on North or South side. She would prefer North because of Ag., which she feels is more align to the community. She shared that they are a close community and wants to know why separated. She invited Commission to call her with questions at . Mahalo, Anela Segreti Administrative Specialist 1 County of Kaua’i Office of Boards and Commissions 4444 Rice Street, Suite 300 Lihue, HI. 96766 Phone: (808) 241-4917 Fax: (808) 241-5127 Email: asegreti@kauai.gov https://www.kauai.gov/BoardsandCommissions The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@voicemail.kauai.gov> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 12:38 PM To: asegreti@voicemail.kauai.gov Subject: Message from Unknown sender (8088238162) Email received 6/29/2020: Chair Sandblom and Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony on CRC 2020-17, regarding the Charter amendment relating to Council Districting that is being proposed. District representation has been in effect for thirty (30) years with respect to every single elective office within the State of Hawaii except for the Kauai County Council. It has been in effect for much longer regarding every Federal elective office (except President/Vice President). Why do you think that is? Does Kauai know something the rest of the State and Federal governments do not know, or have the rest of the State and Federal governments merely come to realize that “district” representation works better than “at-large” representation? I strongly suspect the latter. Only three of the many proposals for Council Districting on Kauai have been put before the voters on the general election ballot, and all have been defeated (partially due to opposition from the Council incumbents at the time, all of whom had been elected at-large). 39% voted for the 1982 proposal, 47% for the 1996 proposal, and 49.6% for the 2006 proposal (falling short by only 161 votes), indicating that the number of voters favoring Council Districting is increasing to the point where such an amendment will likely pass the next time it appears on the ballot. Several other proposals were introduced during the intervening years, however, neither the Charter Review Commission nor the County Council voted to include any of them on the general election ballot, leading us to the current Council Districting proposal. Every other County Council in the State is made up of nine (9) councilmembers elected from nine (9) separate districts within their County. The current proposal also envisions nine (9) councilmembers, however, these would be elected from only three (3) districts, with three of them from each district, thereby defeating the purpose of having single-member districts in the first place. (Whenever a district is allowed to have more than a single member, that election effectively changes from “district “ to “at-large.”) Instead, this proposal would effectively hold three “at-large” elections within each of the three Council Districts rather than having bonafide single-member “district” elections for all nine (9) districts, as has been done on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island for the past thirty (30) years. As a result, the customary pattern on Kauai whereby most previous Councilmembers resided in those areas of Kauai with the largest densities would likely continue, meaning that all three councilmembers elected from the Northeast district would likely reside in the Kapaa area, while those elected from the Wailua-Lihue district would likely reside in the Lihue area, and those elected from the Westside district would likely reside in the Kalaheo area. (See attached worksheet containing various districting scenarios based upon 2010 census data.) Furthermore, previous Council Districting proposals considered by this were comprehensively researched and studied by a committee prior to becoming eligible for a vote by the full Commission (e.g, 1990, 1996, 2016 & 2014). I am unaware, however, of any such committee research having been performed regarding this proposal prior to its becoming eligible for a vote by this full Commission. For these reasons, I must oppose this proposal. Rather than proposing the nine (9) single-member districts used by the rest of the State as an alternative, however, I instead propose seven (7) single-member districts. I sincerely believe most Kauai residents would probably agree that Kauai “naturally” falls within seven (7) geographical areas, all of which distinguish themselves in such a way that they would likely prefer someone from their own area/district to represent them on the County Council, since they would likely share similar experiences and outlooks. These seven distinct districts are the following: 1. Haena-Hanalei-Princeville-Kilauea-Moloaa-Anahola 2. Kapaa-Kealia 3. Wailua Houselots-Wailua Homesteads 4. Hanamaulu-Lihue-Puhi 5. Koloa-Poipu-Kukuiula 6. Kalaheo-Omao-Lawai 7. Eleele-Hanapepe-Kaumakani-Waimea-Kekaha-Niihau Any reapportionment commission, which would be required to implement any number of Council districts other than three (3), should be able to produce acceptable district boundaries according to the census tract data provided by the 2020 Census. I believe that any additional expense required in order to implement a 7-district Council election would be well worth the cost, by creating districts that clearly represent those issues concerning each community. As a result, at least one Councilmember would live near the area concerning any issue coming before the Council, so he/she would then likely be familiar enough with that issue to better explain it to the full Council. Furthermore, having smaller Council districts would make it easier and cheaper for new candidates to campaign for a Council seat, likely resulting in more candidates. Accordingly, I ask that you please reject the original proposal for three (3) districts of three (3) councilmembers each, and instead consider my proposal for seven (7) single-member districts. Sincerely, Bert Lyon 2010 CENSUS DATA NUMBER OF DISTRICTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1990)(1990)(1990) A B Kauai Hawaii Maui Oahu Tract #Name Population 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 9 9 9 401 Haena-Hanalei 1,344 1,344 401 Princeville-Kilauea 6,484 7,828 7,828 9400 Anahola 3,715 11,543 11,543 3,715 10,199 3,715 403 Kapaa 8,385 19,928 19,928 8,385 8,385 8,385 402 Wailua Houselots 5,047 13,432 13,432 402.1 Wailua Homesteads 3,845 8,892 8,892 8,892 404 Puhi-Hanamaulu 8,740 17,632 12,585 12,585 8,740 8,740 8,740 405 Lihue 5,943 23,575 406 Koloa-Poipu 2,544 8,487 8,487 8,487 406 Omao-Kukuiula 3,139 11,626 11,626 11,626 3,139 3,139 3,139 407 Eleele-Kalaheo 8,403 8,403 8,403 8,403 8,403 408 Kaumakani-Hanapepe 3,771 409 Kekaha-Waimea 5,561 412 Niihau 170 23,588 17,905 17,905 9,502 9,502 9,502 9,502 TOTALS 67,091 67,091 67,091 67,091 67,091 67,091 67,091 67,091 120,317 100,504 836,231 Average district size 22,364 16,773 13,418 11,182 9,584 9,584 7,455 13,369 11,167 92,915 Max variance - over 5%7%33%20%?6%19% Max variance - under -11%-31%-14%-25%-18%-13%-58% Election Proposed Charter Amendment Proposed by Proposed by Proposed by Passed by Rejected by Year Council Charter Comm Petition Electorate Electorate 1982 Shall Council members be elected by districts, with one member residing in and elected from each of three districts which shall be established by a reapportionment committee, and four members elected at large, and shall 1983 and every tenth year thereafter be a reapportionment year? X X Yes 5541 No 8682 1990 Effective 1992, shall Council members be elected by districts and shall 1991 and every tenth year thereafter be a reapportionment year? X Pending decision set forth by Ninth Circuit Court 1996 Effective 1998 shall Council members be elected by districts, with one member residing and elected from each of 5 districts, which shall be established by an apportionment commission to be appointed in 1997, and 2 members elected at-large, and shall 2001 and every tenth year thereafter be apportionment year? X X No 9589 44% Yes 8456 38.8% Blank 3729 17.1% Other 6 0.0% 2006 Effective 2008, shall three of the seven council members be elected by districts, with one member residing in and elected from each of three districts that shall be established by an apportionment commission to be appointed in 2007, and four of the seven council members elected at-large, and shall 2011 and every tenth year thereafter be a reapportionment year? X X No 9557 45.1% Yes 9396 44.3% Blank 2247 1.6% Other 12 0.1% 1982-# of registered voters = 22,563 # of votes cast = 18,222 1990-5 single member districts 3 single member districts Yes 3528 16.?% Yes 1566 7.?% Blank votes 5349 24.?% No 2282 10.?% No 874 4.?% Over votes 7966 36.?% Kauai County Charter Review Commission Special Committee on County Districting Report to the commission, Jan. 25,2OfG Members: Commissioners Allan Parachini (chair); Mia Ako; Patrick Stack The committee was charged with identifying what districting proposal, if any, should be accepted by the Charter Review Commission and placed on the November, 2016, general election ballot The committee opted to alter the approach for this review and to explore public opinion survey techniques that could be easily and quickly accessed by the public and that would produce a reliable cross section of Kauai County residents'views on whether County Council members should run by district, at large or a combination of both. At the present time, all seven County Council members are elected and serve on an at large basis. Between Friday, Dec.4,2015, and Wednesday, Dec.30, 2015, the committee, with the support of the County lnformation Technology Department, conducted a survey using via software on SurveyMonkey.com. This was a poll of Kauai County residents to assess their attitudes toward various options for instituting a district-based election system for the County Council. SurveyMonkey.com software is routinely used by Kauai County and hundreds-if not thousands-of other government agencies, media organizations and other concerns and enjoys a favorable reputation in the pollinB ind ustry. The survey was programmed to reject more than one response from any individual lP address. No member of the committee saw anY survey response data while the poll was still online. The SurveyMonkey software package includes a calculator that permits computation of margins of error. Calculating margin of error based on Kauai County's population (approximately 69,000) and the number of the county's registered voters (approximately 42,OOO), the calculator result was the same for total population and registered voters. At a confidence level of 95 percent, the margin of error is plus- or-minus five percent. At a confidence level of 90 percent, the margin of error is plus-or-minus four percent. CRc Jo/5'1) 1 The committee reviewed procedures followed by previous committees of the commission that have considered the districting question. The committee felt that public meetings, while useful, reached fewer than 90 members of the public when they have been held in the past. Those choosing to attend those meetings may have had agendas for districting that did, or did not, reflect those of the broad community. Before recommending any districting scheme, the committee wanted to be reasonably certain that Kauai County residents wanted to enact such a system and, if so, which particular design they would favor. CRC 2020-17 The margin of error quantifies the degree of accuracy that the survey results should provide, so a five percent margin of error means that the percentage responding a certain way to a question might vary by as much as five percentage points higher or lower than the data themselves show. This is a common attribute of all legitimate opinion survey methodologies. The survey results were: Question 1: Would you be in favor of a County Council that is composed of: 7 members, each with a district? 23.3 percent 108 votes 3 districts,4 at large? 7.8 percent 36 votes 4 districts, 3 at large? 15.3 percent 71 votes 5 districts,2 at large? 24.2 percent 112 votes No change from current at large system? 29.4 percent 135 votes Question 2: lf the County were to adopt a form of County Council districting, should voters be able to: Vote for all 7 candidates, regardless of voter's residency? 34 percent 158 votes Vote only for at large members and one member representing voter's district? 55 percent 305 votes question 3: Should district County Council candidates be required to live in the districts they represent?: Candidate must be required to live in district 90 percent 419 votes Candidate may live anywhere in the county 9 percent 44 votes question 4: Are you registered-or eliEible to register-to vote in Kauai County? Registered voter or eligible to register in KauaiCounty-YES 96 percent 448 votes Registered voter or eligible to register in Kauai County-No 3 percent 15 votes DISCUSSION: While participants supporting no change in the existing at large election system for the County Council represented the largest single bloc in this poll, the data also show-perhaps more significantly- that slightly more than 70 percent of participants want some form of district election. Support for five districts and two at large seats was only sliShtly higher than for having all seven county council members be elected by district. lt is important to note that no change; 5-and-2 and 7 districts are all clustered within the poll's calculated margin of error. 2 1) The Commission could vote onto the ballot a proposed Charter Amendment changing the County Council electoral system so the council is made up of five members representing districts and two serving at large. District members would be required to live in the district they represent and would be chosen only by voters in that district. 2) The Commission could decline to propose any Charter Amendment and leave the stotus quo in place. The committee is mindful that the 5-and-2 option has been on the ballot before, in 1996, and failed. Voters have also been asked on two different occasions-in 1982 and 2006-if they wished to adopt a a system in which three County Council members would be elected by district and four at large. Both of those proposed amendments also failed. The survey results may shed light on these previous ballot failures, since voters may have been confused by the complexity of the Charter Amendment they were asked to vote on, they may not have felt they had enough information to make an intelligent voter decision, or they might have favored districting but not the particular scheme proposed. lf the Commission moves forward with placing a districting Charter Amendment on the ballot in 2016, an organized effort to explain the proposal to the public may be in order. The committee did not select the seven district option for two reasons. First, while no change, 5-and-2 and 7 districts are all within the poll's margin of error, the 7 district plan had the least support-albeit by only a small number of votes. Second, and perhaps more important, the committee was m indful of the fact that the County Council may itself place a county manager Charter Amendment on the ballot that would substantially alter the powers of the Mayor and could perhaps make the mayor the presiding officer of the County Council. While the committee takes no position on whether this county manager amendment is in the county's best interests, it seems very unlikely that the presiding officer (mayor) of the County Council could serve credibly on anything other than an at large basis-thus making it impossible to adopt a seven district system. Accordingly, the Special Committee on County Districting recommends to the Charter Review Commission that it consider and choose between taking no action to institute a districting system or to approve, for inclusion on the 2016 ballot, a Charter Amendment to institute a system in which five County Council members would represent districts and two would serve at large, effective in 2018. An apportionment commission would have to be created to draw district lines and this process is provided in the draft Charter Amendment we present to you. Under a new district election system, those members representing districts would be required to reside in those districts. Only voters living within a particular district would be able to vote for the County Council member who would represent that district. All voters would vote for two at large members. lf the commission chooses to pursue placing a district system on the 2016 ballot, the commission's February meeting should include a public hearing at which written and in-person testimony could be received from any member of the community. 3 The committee is proposing that the Charter Review Commission choose between two courses of action: '1. "Section 3.02.9S!o.Eig.U There shall bea council of seven members [elected atlarge]. Two members shall be elected at-laroe bv all reoistered voters inthe countv. Each of the other five members shall reside in and shall be elected from a seoarate council district bv reoistered voters residino in that seoarate council district. Section 3.03. @. The terms of office of [councilmembers] 991ry!!ggg!91gshall be for two years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day in December following their election. No person shall be elected tothe office for morethan four consecutive two year terms. Section 3.04. Qualifications A. To be eligible for the council, a person must be a citizen of the United States and must have been a [duly qualified elector] IcqisleredJqlelof the county for at least two years immediately preceding his @election or appointment. lnaddition, those candid tes for the council who intend to reoresent one of the five council districts must state which district thev intend to reoresent and that lhev have been a reoistered voter of thatdistrict for the orecedino ninetv davs. Should a council member move from. or be removed from. anv of the seven council oositions from which that oerson was elected. anv reolacement aopointee must meet all reouirements of a candidate forthat oosition. Section 3.19. District Election and Reaooointment. C. An initialcouncildistrict aooortionment commission shall be constituted on or before the first dav of Aoril. 20'17. A councildistrict reaooortionment commission shall beconstituted on or before the first dav of Julv of each district reaooortionment vear or whenever district reaooortionment is reouired bv court order. The commission shall consist of seven members. The members of the commission shall be aooointed bv the mavor and confirmed bv the council. The initial council district aooortionment commission shall be responsible for desionatino the oeooraohic boundaries of the council districts orovide for above. The council district reaooortionmenl commission shall be resoonsible for the reaooortionment and redistrictino of those districts. Countv Council- Partial Districtino (Five District/Two At-Laroe) B. Any [councilman] council member who removes his gftqresidence from the county or district from which elected, or is convicted of a felony, shall immediately forfeit his q@office. A. The first election bv seoarate council districts shall be inthe orimarv election of 20'18. B. The vear 2023 and everv tenth vear thereafter shall be district reaoportionment vears. The commission shall elect a chairfrom amono its members, Anv vacancv inthe commissron shall be filled in the same manner as for an orioinal aooointment. The commission shall act bv the maioritv vote of its membershio and shall establish its own procedures. No member of the commission shall be eliqibleto become a candidate for election or aopointment to the council inthe initialelection held under anv aoportion ment or reapoortionment olan adooted bvthe com m ission. E. Anv reoistered voter mav oetition the orooer court to comoel.bv mandamus or otherwise. the aoorooriate oerson or oersons to oerform their dutv or to correct anv error made in the district aooortionment or reaooortionment olan. or the court mav take such other action to h f on as it ma deem aoorooriate- Anv such oetition must beeffect r l a tet eo UT noses o hi s secl filed within fortv-five calendar davs after the filinq of the olan F. The commission's tenure shall end uoon the filino of its plan." (Deleted material is bracketed; new material is underlined) 2 Ballot Question- Effective20l 8, shallfive of theseven council members beelected bydistricts (North, East, Central, South, West) and two of the seven council members be elected at-large, with a commission to be appointed in 201 7 to establish district apportionment, and shall 2023 and every tenth year thereafter be adistrict reapportionment year? PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KAUAI COUNTY CHARTER SECTION 9A, REGARDING FILLING A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SUMMARY The Charter Review Commission proposes an amendment to Kaua’i County Charter regarding the seating of the prosecuting attorney if that position becomes vacant. Three alternatives are considered for review. Each of these proposals would avoid the cost, inconvenience and disruption of special election held outside the time of regular elections. Each would provide for an orderly transfer of authority. Proposal One is preferred, since it ensures a voter-elected prosecutor for the second half of a term in the event of an early vacancy, as occurred in 2021. Proposal Two would allow the first deputy to serve out the entire term of the elected prosecutor; It provides for an orderly transition but reduces the involvement of the electorate. Proposal Three would provide for the mayor, with council approval, to fill the vacancy for the entire unexpired term; An alternative to Proposal Two, it provides indirect electorate involvement, as it allows the mayor and council, who are elected, to fill the seat. PROPOSAL (Provides for first deputy to serve until the next scheduled election; Provides for mayor/council appointment in the event the deputy cannot serve. Ensures an elected prosecutor for the final two years of a prosecutor’s four-year term if vacancy occurs early in the term.) Section 9A.05. Vacancy in Office. A vacancy in the office of prosecuting attorney shall be filled in the following manner: A. If the vacancy occurs more than three days prior to the closing date for filing of nomination papers for the mid-term election, the position will be filled with a special primary election and special general election held in conjunction with the mid-term election. The first deputy prosecutor shall serve until the winner of that election is seated as prosecutor. If the first deputy position is vacant or if the first deputy is unable to serve, then the mayor, with the approval of the county council, shall, within 30 days of the vacancy or as soon thereafter as possible, appoint a qualified prosecuting attorney to serve until a new elected prosecutor is seated. B. If the vacancy occurs later than three days prior to the closing date for filing of nomination papers for the mid-term election, the first deputy prosecutor shall serve for the remainder of the term. If the first deputy position is vacant or if the first deputy is unable to serve, then the mayor, with the approval of the county council, shall, within 30 days of the vacancy or as soon thereafter as possible, appoint a qualified prosecuting attorney to serve until a new elected prosecutor is seated. CRC 2021-08