The Kaua‘i County Charter provides for three methods to propose amendments: (1) proposal from Charter Commission; (2) resolution of County Council; and (3) petition by citizens. This year the seven amendments proposed for voter decision are all from the Charter
The Kaua‘i County Charter provides for three methods to propose amendments: (1) proposal from Charter Commission; (2) resolution of County Council; and (3) petition by citizens. This year the seven amendments proposed for voter decision are all from the Charter Commission.
The charter states that a Charter Commission is to be established “to study and review the operation of the county government under this charter.” There is no evidence that this or any prior commission has ever followed such mandate, and the measures being proposed as 2010 amendments haven’t been based on any comprehensive study or review of county operations.
Although it is a reasonable assumption that the commission should be prepared to consider measures suggested by both county officials and citizens, in fact, the proposals being presented this year all arise directly or indirectly from county officials. The only important proposal offered by a citizen group was for a county-manager form of government. It was summarily rejected by the commission after a committee of the commission authored superficial negative findings.
To date the only materials publicly available are the text of the proposed amendments and the ballot question relating to each measure. In the past pro and con material was also given. The proposals are not numbered but they will be discussed in the order presented.
Let us examine the proposals:
The gist of the first proposal is to extend the term of council members from two to four years. In various forms this concept has previously been rejected by Kaua‘i voters at least five times. Naturally council members would like longer terms. But the existing pattern is comparable to the two-year term applicable for the junior legislative body in our state and federal government, and voters have consistently felt that accountability is better with the shorter term. Another objection to the proposal is its effect on the eight-year, consecutive-service limit. At present this restriction would become effective in 2014. If the new limit were only prospectively applied it would enable current council members to serve until 2018.
The second proposal would change the title of the mayor’s administrative assistant to “managing director,” would impose certain educational and experience requirements for the position, and would designate him or her as the mayor’s principal assistant with a function of “overseeing” county departments. The language as to qualifications and duties is vague. The mayor remains the county’s chief executive officer and, at variance with the customary arrangement elsewhere, he would supervise the managing director. It appears that the proposal was designed to enable supporters of our present governing system to claim that we don’t need a county-manager type of system because we will have one that offers its features. The defects of this contention should be readily recognized.
The third proposal appears harmless. The ballot question masks misleadingly the changes in procurement practices proposed as being made in order to conform to state law, but some are not.
The charter now requires competitive bidding for all contracts between the county and an employee or officer or firms in which they have “a substantial interest” if the amount involved is over $500. The fourth proposal seeks to raise the limit to $1,000. No justification for this change is given.
The fifth proposal would extend from six months to one year the prohibition on contracts with former employees where the employee “participated in the subject matter of the contract while employed.” Is that vague enough for you?
The sixth proposal would, ungrammatically, extend disclosure requirements to Finance Department assistants. Although the proposal is superficially attractive, why should our charter be cluttered with provisions that cannot be intelligibly stated?
There are several issues concerning the seventh proposal which purports to amend Charter Section 20.05 D (2) to cure a 30-day time limit for certain Ethics Board actions. The opening sentence of Section 20.05 D (2) of the charter has since the inception of the Charter provided for a function of the board to be “To render advisory opinions or interpretations with respect to the application of the code on request.” However, the proposed amendment as published in The Garden Island on Sept. 29, 2010 states the function as “To render advisory opinions or interpretation with respect to application filing and request.” A correction misdescribing the change as a typographical error and returning to the original text was published in The Garden Island on Oct. 2, 2010. The correction was said to be made pursuant to Article 24 of the charter, but that article contains no authority for such a change.. Whether the correction complies with county or state law is unknown, but its validity may well be questioned. The final sentence of the proposal is also defective in failing to refer to interpretations, and in that it improperly and unjustifiably restricts the board in instances where it has not acted. While protecting the person obtaining and relying on an opinion should be given, there does not seem to be any justification for binding the board as to a ruling it did not make. In sum, the intent is benign, but the language is unwarranted and the process is tainted.
The proposals disclose that they were carelessly screened and unprofessionally expressed. Our county charter should not be burdened with inaccurate or ambiguous language as several proposals are.
It is difficult to find a proposal among the seven discussed that should be favorably considered by the voters. But, in the opinion of this writer, proposals one, two and seven are particularly unattractive and should be rejected by all thoughtful voters.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
