In recent weeks those of you who enjoy reading The Garden Island Forum have been treated to observing a dialogue between citizen activist Glenn Mickens and retired judge Alfred Laureta on the subject of having a county manager system for
In recent weeks those of you who enjoy reading The Garden Island Forum have been treated to observing a dialogue between citizen activist Glenn Mickens and retired judge Alfred Laureta on the subject of having a county manager system for Kaua‘i.
Mr. Mickens in his straightforward style has written about his personal observations through attendance at County Council and other county meetings for many years of the flaws, inadequacies and inefficiencies in the operation of our county government and has urged the adoption of the manager system which he notes is rated a clearly better governmental system.
As you might expect from a former jurist, Mr. Laureta’s position is more sophisticated. He avoids endorsing either a manager system or the present system and instead raises questions about his concerns. In the main they are (1) the legality of a proposal for a manager system; and (2) the question whether the flaws in the current Kaua‘i governmental method are sufficient to justify any change.
Obviously the rules of engagement in this dialogue are precluding a meaningful resolution of the real issues.
Let’s consider Mr. Laureta’s concerns. In July 2009 a letter was written by a relatively newly hired junior deputy county attorney in response to a request from the Kaua‘i Charter Review Commission 14 months earlier for guidance as to the legality of a proposed form of council-manager form of government and the pros and cons of such a form of government.
The deputy’s letter consisted of a recital of his views as to the policy factors adverse to a manager system and his negative conclusion about legality of the manager proposal that had been made, and his reasons as to the illegality of any similar proposal. It is difficult to believe that the partisan expressions about the policy factors did not pollute the value and credibility of the legal opinion.
As the county attorney is appointed by and reports to the mayor, troublesome questions arise as to his independence on matters of this nature. Each year the county expends millions of dollars in retaining counsel to represent it and its agencies.
Any change in the governmental form such as involved in the manager system, as the opinion states, would be a fundamental one for Kaua‘i. It would seem that the county should obtain for analysis of the legality of major matters the views of objective counsel having recognized standing and competence.
For example, when the county borrows money in a bonded indebtedness it retains a San Francisco law firm with impeccable credentials to opine on the legality of the offering. It is hard to explain why the county now seems to be relying for an opinion about a matter as important as the manager system on the controversial expression of a junior deputy county attorney. Is this how county officials believe the people should be served?
Any observant citizen can develop a report card on the performance of our present governmental form. And there will be different grades depending on your perspective. But this is not the appropriate occasion to invoke the maxim “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
The issue that should be placed before the voters is not a referendum on the current system but instead is an evaluation of whether the council-manager concept is the better choice. Comprehensive information about the manager concept and its performance in communities in 45 of our states are readily available.
In his latest sally Laureta cynically asked Mickens what his real reasons are for supporting a county manager system. Apparently Laureta does not believe that anyone could honestly be a proponent for any action because it is the better choice.
When the surviving member of the Charter Review Commission Governance Committee offered her recommendations in November of last year she presented continuing to consider a manager system proposal as the initial alternative. However, she gave to the less than enthusiastic commission an estimate that it would require 500 man hours to develop a manager proposal.
It can be easily inferred that this massive estimate was intended to discourage pursuit of the proposal. The estimated time was not well assessed. In 2008 a proposal was given to the Charter Commission by then-Commissioner Briant that included the details of the transfer of administrative duties from the mayor to the manager, the empowering of the council as to the hiring and firing of the manager and the qualification standards for the manager. A review of the accuracy and completeness of these matters would not be a significant time consumer.
The only other vital topic for examination for a new proposal is the issue of the role of the mayor under a manager system. The prevailing sentiment of many is that an elected mayor should continue to have the present ceremonial functions and also should become a member of the council, perhaps as its chair. Reinforced as it is by three new members the facilitation of this issue by the commission should not be a major undertaking.
The manager concept has been before the Charter Review Commission since 2005. Responsible reasons for further deferral of its consideration are not apparent. If the Charter Commission bestirs itself, in the final analysis it will be up to the voters of our county to decide whether they wish to have a council-manager system In my view, it would derelict of the commission to fail to develop a well considered form of council-manager amendment to our charter and to offer it as a ballot measure to our citizens later this year.
Unfortunately there is often a wide gap between what our government does and what it should do.
•Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
