The recent claims by Kaua‘i County Council members Bynum and Kawahara about their inability to obtain a place on the council agenda for their proposals have spotlighted concerns concerning how the council rules are being abused to preclude legitimate discussion.
The recent claims by Kaua‘i County Council members Bynum and Kawahara about their inability to obtain a place on the council agenda for their proposals have spotlighted concerns concerning how the council rules are being abused to preclude legitimate discussion. The valid points raised by the council members are but the tip of the iceberg.
The rules of any deliberative assembly necessarily contain many arid terms derived largely from Roberts Rules of Order to structure debate. But the rules can, and, on Kaua‘i do, also include a number of instances of terms usable to wield and manipulate undue power.
Because of them, the council does not now provide a responsive and reasonable forum for an effective interchange of views among council members and between the council and the public.
Legislative process should enable a meaningful dialogue for interested citizens with the council. Instead the realities here are that the connection between them is increasingly alienated.
Fewer and fewer citizens attend council meetings, testimony is diminished, council operations behind closed doors are growing and relationships are disturbingly hostile. Increasingly the council does not serve its citizens as it should, instead viewing members of the public who attend council meetings as adversaries.
For the benefit of both the council and the public, change is mandated. To a certain extent corrections can occur without changes in the council rules. The council should understand it has invited public input by placing a topic on its agenda.
Public testimony must be received willingly and graciously whether it supports a proposed course or not. Citizens must discipline themselves to restrict their statements to be constructive and relevant. Council members should provide announced times when they are available to meet with citizens and discuss community issues and council plans.
But other reforms will require an examination of council practices and also the rules and amendments to them.
Are there Rules that should be changed.? Most certainly yes, but the committee proposed by Council members Chang and Furfaro is the wrong way to do it. The examination should be open with public participation.
To start look at Rule 1. The Sunshine Law controls all meeting notice requirements, but Rule 1(c) indicates it only applies to Special Meetings. Rule 1(b) maintains the archaic divide between Regular and Special meetings.
Most organizations rules specify a fixed time and place for their Regular meetings. But our Council’s rules provide for discretionary changes in location, time, and date basically eliminating regularity.
It is appropriate to empower the council chair to preside over meetings, but granting veto power over what can be discussed at a meeting is abusive. Rule 10(a) should be amended to mandate the right of a member to introduce a bill or resolution.
Rule 15(b) should be changed to clarify that the chair’s initialing power shall not be used to preclude any communication or resolution from a place on an agenda. Similarly Rule 3(c) should be amplified to assure that all communications concerning an agenda item are provided by the Clerk promptly to all council members or committee members, as the case may be.
The rules do not, but should, require that all public hearings be held during regular business hours and that they should commence as promptly as practicable after the scheduled time.
Rule 9 relates to citizen petitions. It empowers the chair to “dispose” of them This unlimited discretion should be clarified to require standards for treating them.
The rules are defective in failing to address the right of any member of the public to provide testimony on any agenda item as is required under the state Sunshine Law. Instead the practices governing such testimony are attempted to be brought under the provisions of Rule 12(e) relating to public hearings. The fit is imperfect and the rules should be changed.
The permissible time limit for testimony is a difficult subject. The present rigid three minute rule is counterproductive. To register a simple for or against view on any proposition it is ample. But to provide a reasoned analysis of complex issue it is inadequate.
The rules should permit the chair to exercise discretion as to the length testimony is permissible particularly where the witness has prepared written testimony or where the testimony is well considered and not redundant. It is to be noted that the testimony is seen and heard by many citizens on Ho‘ike in addition to those in the council chambers and curtailing thoughtful testimony is not in the public interest.
The established practice under the rules is to preclude an interchange between the witness and any member of the council. While this usage is consistent with the concept that the testimony is for the edification of the council members, where the witness has no way to learn of the state of mind of the council members it frequently prevents an appropriate discussion of the issues.
The rules should be changed to allow, with the discretion of the chair, witnesses to seek information and views of council members.
It frequently happens that following the testimony by a member of the public a council member will be allowed to offer a comment about some part of the testimony with which the council member disagrees. The rules should prohibit such commentaries unless the witness is given a suitable opportunity to respond.
Rules exist to facilitate the orderly processing of the business of the council. Once elemental due process fairness has been served, rules should be interpreted and applied with the flexibility needed to further the public interest. At present this is not occurring.
A council that is fair to all of its members and serves the public interest is critically needed to meet the many challenges of our current environment. It is quite clear that some major changes should be made in the language of the rules and very importantly in the manner they are administered.
These changes can only be accomplished by the council itself. Will the council have the discipline and respect for the public interest to make appropriate changes happen? Or is it time to elect more responsible council members?
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
