There seems to be a continuing theme in the Charter Commission (more commonly known as the Charter Review Commission) to limit the transparency of our county government and to protect it from actions by county citizens to change or influence
There seems to be a continuing theme in the Charter Commission (more commonly known as the Charter Review Commission) to limit the transparency of our county government and to protect it from actions by county citizens to change or influence its nature.
The seven members of the commission are appointed by the mayor and are confirmed by the County Council. Although in theory perhaps the members are designated to serve the interests of our citizens, in fact, their performance has, with a few exceptions, has been in lockstep with the stated or implied position of the administration and the council. This orientation is observable in its meeting pattern. Although the commission holds monthly meetings which are regularly attended by members of the public, seldom do county officials attend. Yet in the 2010 General Election at which the commission sponsored six proposed charter amendments, all of them arose, directly or indirectly, from county officials. Not a single proposal offered by citizens was given to the voters.
Let’s look at some recent year illustrations.
Since the original adoption of the County Charter a provision of the charter, Section 3.07 E, required council meetings to be open to the public on all matters except for consultations with the county attorney on claims. However, the council was holding executive sessions which appeared to be on matters other than claims and a group of citizens were asserting that the council was acting improperly. Rather than reforming their practices to be more open, a different route was chosen. Without any testimony or other notice, there appeared on the agenda of the commission a proposal to amend the charter to eliminate the troublesome restriction on executive sessions. Although opposed by all public testimony, the commission quietly approved the presenting the proposal to the voters in 2008. With the aid of a misleading description of the purpose of the proposal, it was adopted by the voters, pleasing all who want a less open government.
During the years 2007 through 2009 a single member of the commission (initially Walter Briant and later his widow) endeavored to bring a county manager proposal to a vote by the citizens of the county. Although the manager concept had been warmly supported by substantial testimony from the public, Mr. Briant was not even able to get the commission to consider it. But when Ms. Davis-Briant, his widow, was appointed to the commission in 2008 following his death, evidently pressured after over a year of stonewalling the manager subject, Ms. Davis-Briant was appointed as one member of a three person committee to consider the concept. After several futile months Ms. Davis-Briant resigned from the committee giving a message of frustration about the treatment she received. When other members of that committee also resigned for different reasons, a new committee was appointed. This committee held a few perfunctory community meetings and then issued a meaningless report recommending that the manager concept not be offered as a measure for a public vote. The commission again blunted a potential assault on the establishment.
Last month an apparently innocuous item appeared on the commission’s agenda to consider a possible change in the number of voter signatures required for a petition to amend the charter. At present the charter specifies that five percent of the county’s registered voters must sign a citizens petition to amend. Over the last thirty years or more there have been only two instances of citizen petitions offered for vote by our citizens. Both were adopted by about a two-thirds vote. In both cases the petitions arose after failed efforts to obtain council action and both were opposed by all of the council members and the mayor. In our federal government when the president and congressional members are on one side of an issue and two thirds of the voters are on the other side, we say that our elected representatives are out of touch with their constituents and there are often political consequences. On Kaua‘i our elected representatives seem immune from accountability for their positions. If the signature percentage requirement had been higher it is unlikely that either proposed amendment would have been successful as it is time consuming, costly and difficult to collect a large number of valid signatures. If we wish to preserve the citizens right to act when our elected representatives have failed us, we should resist any efforts to raise the present percentage requirement. The matter will again be on the commission’s agenda at its Feb. 28 meeting. It would be well to make your opinion known.
It is a matter of concern that the commission has proved so unreceptive to citizens ideas and so anxious to protect the citadel of our government. But until the selection process is remedied to permit open minded people to serve on our county’s Boards and Commissions as is now proposed in Hawai‘i Senate Bill 214 for an ethics commission, and until the covert pressure to avoid any action that would upset the status quo, it appears that we will continue to have a charter commission and other boards and commissions that are oriented to serve the interests of our county officials instead of the broader public interest.
Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
