Proposed Charter Amendments on Ballot in General Election
November, 2006
Some Thoughts by Councilmember JoAnn A. Yukimura
A Preliminary Caveat: Over the past few weeks, people have called to ask for my thoughts about the 15 Charter Amendments that are on the ballot. Because I have some experience and history in county government, the analyses may be helpful to you. Please know that except for Charter Question No.1, I am not trying to lobby or persuade any person to vote one way or another. I am simply sharing my mana`o. Hopefully it will be helpful.
If in doubt, vote NO. Unless you are sure you want the proposed provision, DON’T vote to put it in the charter. Instead, vote NO. It is important to vote “no” because blank votes are not counted in determining whether an issue passed or no. The determinative fact is whether there are more “Yes’s” than “No’s” By this method of counting ballots, a small minority could pass a measure as long as the “No’s” were less.
Question No. 1. Shall The Parks And Recreation Function, Which Is Currently Performed By Divisions Of The Office Of Community Assistance And The Department Of Public Works, Be Instead Performed By A Newly-Created Department Of Parks And Recreation?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote YES.
Rationale: Presently the Parks and Recreation functions are divided between two different agencies, making coordination and planning difficult. The Office of Community Assistance delivers the programming and the Division of Parks in Public Works oversees planning and maintenance of park facilities. It makes more sense to put both functions, facilities and programming, in one department under a high level manager. At present, park facilities which is a division of Public Works gets lost among Roads, Solid Waste and Sewers. It may cost more money at first, (though this has not been proven), but I believe it is time to make an investment in a sound organizational structure for Parks so that Kaua`i can have the kind of professional, community- based park management it deserves—and Kaua`i can have the cleanest bathrooms in the state!
Question No. 2 Shall the term of office for councilmembers be limited to four consecutive elected two year terms, beginning with the 2008 general election?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO
Rationale: If we are going to pose term limitations (I believe they have some merit) we should give councilmembers optimal conditions to do a good job during the eight years. This means that the Council term should be a 4-year term, with a two term limit. A two-year term means that councilmembers are running for office EVERY OTHER YEAR. As a full-time councilmembers who works year around on the issues, I can tell you that an election every two years diminishes my ability to do my work as a councilmember. Because it is campaign season, I have been unable to meet with various groups ,(e.g. Apollo Kaua`i, the Kaua`i Public Land Trust, the Drug Prevention Coalition, and Sustainable Kaua`i) that I work with on various issues. Even the work I have been doing with my Council staff has slowed down. Also, you may have noticed that some of the critical issues have been deferred, which often happens at election time. Furthermore, a two year term encourages short term decision-making. If a term limit passes this year, securing a 4-year term will be very difficult. They need to be presented together. So I would vote NO now and wait for a proposed amendment that imposes a two term limit on 2 FOUR YEAR terms.
Question No. 3: 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?
RECOMMENDATION: I am voting “NO.” You should read below and make your own decision.
Rationale: We will probably have to move to districting at some point.. The question is whether we should do so now. I would hold off a little longer. Districting is not a panacea. It causes “district” thinking which can often lose sight of the big picture. This is how the State’s surplus was dissipated years ago when the various legislators “divided the pork” so they could get projects for their district. No one was looking at the big picture. Also, sometimes, it will not feel as thought the elected official from your district is YOUR representative. District elections can be subjected to pressures and funding by special interests—in fact, it’s easier because it’s cheaper. I am sure you can think of people who live in your community that you would not like representing you. The problems of “district thinking” is mitigated by having four people continued to be elected at large. However, districting also causes “hegemony” Will the at-large people have to pay deference before acting in another councilmember’s district? Right now we can work with any and all people across the island. I think both systems have merit. I think we should change to districts (with the arrangement of four council seats at large) only when we get too big in population. I don’t think we’re there yet, but you make your own choice.
Question No. 4: Shall the Charter Commission, which is currently formed every ten years to study and review the operations of county government and propose amendments to the Charter, instead be established for a period of ten years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2017, and thereafter, revert to being formed every ten years?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote YES.
Rationale: A close look at the charter suggests that the intention of the drafters was to have a charter commission established to work until its job was done. However, present official interpretation is that the existing charter commission has a three year term. The charter is due for an overhaul. This should be done deliberately and with continuity. I would have preferred an option that allow the Charter Commission to work until it feels its work is done not to exceed 10 years, but the choice is as stated above.
Question No. 5: Shall the findings of the Salary Commission establishing salaries for all councilmembers and county officers and employees who are exempt from civil service become effective unless rejected in whole or in part, by a vote of five or more members of the Council?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote YES
Rationale: It is always better for a “professional” group rather than a “political” group to make salary decisions.
Question No. 6: Shall there be a Boards and Commissions Administrator and any necessary staff to assist in providing training, education, administrative and operational support to the various county boards and commissions?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO
Rationale: I agree that such a position is needed, but I do not feel that the Charter is the place to create it. It can be created as a Civil Service position in the budget with necessary staff. There can thus be continuity and efficiency.
Question No. 7: Shall all boards and commissions established by Charter consist of seven members, including the Police Commission, Civil Service Commission, Liquor Commission and the Board of Ethics?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO
Rationale: I haven’t seen any evidence of need for more than 5 in the commissions with 5 members.
Question No.8: Shall members of boards and commissions established by Charter serve staggered terms of three years, including the Cost Control Commission, whose members currently serve terms ending at the same time as the Mayor and the Salary Commission, whose members currently serve terms rending as the same time as the Council?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote YES
Rationale: Staggered terms that span elected terms are much more functional and effective. The Council takes enough time to organize itself, much less appoint members to commissions plus, having a total change-over every other year is ridiculous.
Question No.9: Shall all members of boards and commissions established by Charter be appointed by the Mayor and approved by the County Council, including the Cost Control. And Salary Commission?
RECOMMEDATION: Vote YES
Rationale: It is hard enough for one person to appoint someone. To have seven people first nominate then choose among themselves is extremely time consuming. The Council is better suited as a confirming body. It would be good, however, if the mayor would solicit suggestions from the Council—and that can be done without legislation (though it could be legislated also)
Question No. 10. Shall there be a Fire Commission consisting of seven members who shall appoint and remove the fire chief, review and make recommendations relating to the First Department’s annual budget and operations and hear complaints of citizens concerning the department or its personnel?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO.
Rationale: So far, if we review the performance history of the Police Commission and the Planning Commission, we are doing a terrible job of appointment and oversight by commission. Let’s not spread that to the Fire Department which is operating quite well under another system—appointment and oversight by the mayor. Commission members, whether Police or Planning are lay people serving without pay. They haven’t shown the ability to manage well the appointment and oversight power.
Question 11: Should the requirement that each initiative and referendum petition be signed by not less than 20% of the number of eligible voters in the last general election be reduced to 5% of eligible voters?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO.
Rationale: I haven’t done enough research on this. I am following my own rule: if in doubt, vote NO. As one who participated/led a successful initiative effort, securing the required 20%, I know how challenging it is and I agree the number of signatures required should be less. I think it should be 10% rather than 5%. I see initiative and referendum as a last resort to an unresponsive legislative body. I don’t see it as a method equal to the legislative process which has many more safeguards than initiative and referendum—e.g. a public hearing, experience law drafters, first and second readings and committee work, with public participation allowed at every level. Initiative and Referendum has none of those safeguards.
Questions No. 12: Shall the requirements that each recall petition be signed by not less than 20% of the voters registered in the last general election be reduced to 5%?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO
The percentage should not be impossible, but it shouldn’t be real easy either. I think it should be the same as for I and R—i.e., 10%.
Question No. 13: Shall the Code of Ethics be amended to prohibit councilmembers from voting on a matter in which the councilmember has a conflict of interest unless the councilmember’s participation is required for a quorum and subsequent vote?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote YES
Rationale: It’s pretty self-evident. It’s the right thing to do where there is a genuine conflict of interest.
Question No. 14: Shall the requirements that the County Engineer be a registered engineer be removed from the Charter?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO
Rationale: While it helps that a County Engineer is a licensed engineer, I don’t believe it is necessary that he be one. Public Works basically needs a good manager. To remove the requirement requires that the title be changed, and I don’t see this happening here.
Question No. 15: Shall the title of Administrative Assistant be changed to Managing Director?
RECOMMENDATION: Vote YES.
Rationale: It is long overdue. We all know that the title, “Administrative Assistant” for the second-in-command in the county is outdated. “Managing Director” is so much more accurate and clear