Kaua‘i voters should scrutinize the seven questions they will be asked on the Nov. 2 ballot. Their decisions on these proposed changes to the County Charter could have a lasting impact on how the island is governed. Perhaps the most
Kaua‘i voters should scrutinize the seven questions they will be asked on the Nov. 2 ballot. Their decisions on these proposed changes to the County Charter could have a lasting impact on how the island is governed.
Perhaps the most substantial decision voters must decide this election is if the Kaua‘i County Charter should be amended to allow council members to serve two consecutive four-year terms?” Council members currently serve two-year terms with a four-term limit. It was only in 2008 that voters placed a limit on the number of terms council members could serve. Why we are already revisiting the council term question at the very next election is beyond us. The voters of Kaua‘i spoke loud and clear just two years ago.
Nonetheless, we believe a four-year term is too long for council members. Facing reelection every two years improves accountability.
We recognize the unfortunate reality of the two-year term being that council members spend at least half of their second year in office campaigning for re-election. To this, we simply urge the council members to stay true to their oaths of office and remain hard at work addressing the issues facing the county throughout the entirety of their terms.
However, with the additional campaigning comes the opportunity for the community to once again be heard and offer feedback to allow mid-course corrections as needed. This may be wishful thinking, but it’s certainly not too much to expect from our elected representatives.
Another question voters will see this November is: “Should the Kaua‘i County Charter be amended so that the Mayor’s Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be change to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?”
We believe the person in this position should obviously have “appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties.” The title doesn’t matter.
What we don’t want to see is an end to the public debate over the strong mayoral versus county manager form of government by being able to say, “We already have a managing director with these qualifications.” As we have opined before, this issue should be put before voters. We’re disappointed that this wasn’t a question on the November ballot.
Another interesting question voters will see at the polls Nov. 2 is: “Should the Kaua‘i County Charter be amended to extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?”
We believe the extended time is warranted. The more time that passes the better in such instances, as these waters can get muddied real quick.
We also urge residents to vote yes on amending the charter to require a disclosure statement be filed with the county Board of Ethics for any employee delegated to act on behalf of the director or deputy director of the Finance Department. Anyone with such a close tie to the county purse strings should be as transparent as possible.
Another question to appear on the ballot at the upcoming election deals with the same board. It asks: “Should the Kaua‘i County Charter be amended to extend the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?”
We believe a “yes” vote on this is appropriate. Giving a volunteer board that only meets monthly a bit more time to render a binding advisory opinion makes sense. We don’t want to see the board use the extra time to slack off in their duties to the public, but we do want them to have enough time to ensure their comfort with an opinion before approving it.
From extending term limits for Kaua‘i County Council members to financial disclosures and ethical procedures, the Charter Review Commission put forward some substantial issues to be decided at the general election.
The other two avenues to put a proposed charter amendment before voters — the Kaua‘i County Council or a citizens petition — were not utilized this election. Unfortunately, we aren’t surprised, especially with the latter.
In 2008, residents gathered the necessary signatures and put a question on the ballot that took the permitting power to approve requests for new tourist accommodations from the Planning Commission and gave it to the council. The amendment, now supposedly law, allows the council to pass the approval authority back to the commission if it enacts a rate-of-growth limit that is consistent with the General Plan. The goal with the amendment was to have smart growth, not eliminate it entirely.
Voters overwhelmingly passed this charter amendment. But almost two years later, we have yet to see its implementation despite the county spending thousands of dollars on outside legal counsel.
This matter deserves a profound public explanation from the council and administration. Until we better understand why this law has been cast aside like it doesn’t exist, we will be left with the impression that regardless of the outcome to the questions put before voters this time around, the county will simply pick and choose which new laws it feels like implementing.
As always, we encourage all eligible residents to vote — and to vote their conscience. Some 37,000 registered voters choosing to stay home during the primaries was unsettling. We can do better at the general election Nov. 2.
