At present, Kauai governmental affairs are conducted under what is commonly known as the Strong Mayor system. This arrangement is comprised of a mayor selected by vote from our citizens who is our chief executive officer and responsible for the management of county operations and a County Council which is responsible for legislative matters. An alternate system has been proposed for Kauai. It is the council- manager system. It retains the council as our legislative body and employs a manager selected by the council as our chief executive officer. The council-manager system is in use in the majority of communities the size of Kauai.
The council-manager system was created to provide transparency and accountability and to protect against corruption by having a nonpartisan manager to oversee the community’s day-to-day operations.
A well-known local saying is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Let’s take a look at our situation and consider whether the system we have now needs fixing.
A number of our county operations are running reasonably well, but others have chronic problems. Some of them include the notorious delay in creating a landfill to replace the Kekaha mountain, the widespread deterioration of our streets and roads, the obvious inefficiency of our county attorney and his office and the reprehensible 20-year failure to repair the Kilauea gym.
An underlying condition is a major cause of this maladministration. Many of our county officials, both those appointed and those elected, have succumbed to the mental attitude that it is better to get along than to do those things that are responsible and right. A few instances may be illustrative.
Kauai County Charter Section 3.17 empowers the County Council to conduct investigations into administrative matters which do not seem well handled. Although employment of the section was considered by the council with regard to the morass the county regulation of transient vacation rentals has become, no use of the section was then made. It has never in its history been applied. Why? Although administration response to the County Council inquiries has over the years been frequently delayed, often incomplete and sometimes inaccurate, council members have been reluctant to seek better treatment and require prompt and full responses because of concern about irritating those in the executive side of the government. So on numerous issues we get along, but corrective action does not happen.
County boards and commissions are also afflicted with this malady. The Charter Review Commission, which like the others has its members appointed by the mayor, recently rejected the popular concept of having citizens elect County Council members by district. This proposal was unattractive to incumbent council members, so the commission took the easy path and turned it down. The right thing to do should have been to allow a measure to be submitted for citizen vote, but it was not to be.
Another instance where county officials are looking the other way rather than considering performing their duties, is the case where the mayor was disclosed in a Fuel Audit to have misappropriated county gas for his personal vehicle and then grossly magnified its impact by invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination triggering Sec. 78-9. Probably impelled by not wanting to disturb the status quo, some county officials have lost sight of their responsibilities and tried to ignore the situation.
If space permitted numerous other illustrations could be offered. Their common theme would be that attempts to preserve relationships often interfere with appropriate conduct.
A contributing factor for some of our problems is that our mayor has chosen to head some county offices with persons who are not adequately qualified. Patronage and cronyism do not provide effective government.
The county manager system is not a panacea for all the problems discussed, but it simplifies the issues. The manager is appointed by the council and when necessary can be removed by it. Under this structure, the manager is motivated to serve the council’s needs and to be responsive to its requests. Our mayor’s term is fixed at four years. Early removal of a fixed term officer is unlikely.
Our present mayor remains popular despite some dubious choices for department heads, failure to have any real accomplishments and his misstep in the Fuel Audit episode. But he does not take kindly to what he sees as council interference and a visible tension exists between the administration and the council.
A frequently asked question is whether there is a role for a mayor in the manager system. There certainly can be. Manager systems are flexible. A popular arrangement is one where the manager has all of the executive duties, but a mayor is elected by public vote to serve as one seat on the County Council and to perform the ceremonial and intergovernmental functions required for county affairs. A variation is to have the mayor serve as chair of the council.
Other important inquiries are how are we assured of the competence and reliability of the person selected as the manager and that the council will choose a fully qualified manager. The key is to enact in the establishment arrangements time tested criteria for the education and the experience of the candidate.
Well-designed programs require that the candidate should have had post graduate training from an accredited school in the management of municipal affairs and then have had several years of field experience. The only qualifications now required on Kauai to be mayor are attaining the age of 35 and being elected.
The probability that a well-trained administrator will perform the executive duties better are overwhelming. A more efficient performance of the executive duties of our county will result in cost savings for the electorate and improved services.
It is difficult to measure the relative effectiveness of the manager system because circumstances in each community are different, but sequential studies have shown economic improvement when the manager system is installed.
A recent study found that council-manager systems are about 10 percent more efficient than those with strong mayoral governments. It also is indicative that when governmental system change occurs it is much more likely to be to a manager system and away from a mayoral system.
With our mayor proposing an ever-increasing budget for the coming year, the economies that would arise from a more efficient government should be hailed by our overstretched taxpayers.
A proposal to have voters determine if they want a county manager system on Kauai can arise in one of three ways – by petition from the Charter Review Commission, from the council or by 5 percent of the county registered voters.
The commission, being appointed by the mayor, would be influenced by his inevitably adverse views and would almost certainly never approve it, a citizens petition would be time consuming and difficult, but the council should recognize the merit and the appeal to the electorate that a manager proposal has.
For a good many it would be awesome if the council would demonstrate that it is not intimidated by mayoral pressure and to take the required steps to consider and then sponsor such a proposal.
In the ultimate analysis, it is up to the people of our county to have the interest and then the commitment to want to install a more efficient form of government for our island.
It is hoped that this article will stimulate those reading it to seek to explore this exciting potential for our island. Should you want further information please call Glenn Mickens (822-0998) or Ken Taylor (823-8527), who are co-chairing Kauaians for a Better Government.
• Walter Lewis is a regular contributor to The Garden Island.
