Although the Charter Review Commission has not seen fit to convene public meetings to seek input on any other measure it has considered, its Governance Committee held three meetings the week of June 14 to get citizen comments on the
Although the Charter Review Commission has not seen fit to convene public meetings to seek input on any other measure it has considered, its Governance Committee held three meetings the week of June 14 to get citizen comments on the proposed charter amendment for a county-manager system of government.
I attended the first of these meetings at Princeville on June 14. Nearly half of the attendance of about 35 persons consisted of persons holding positions with the county. As county employees constitute only about 2 percent of our island population their meeting presence was clearly disproportionate.
Three of the persons with county positions spoke at the meeting. Two of the speakers, county employees, noted at some length that their families had been on Kaua‘i for several generations and they said they were in opposition to the manager proposal because they were comfortable with the present system. Obviously the current system is the only one they knew and change was outside their comfort zone. A county commissioner advised of his opposition to placing a manager proposal on the ballot because it failed to conform to the checks and balances provisions ingrained in our federal constitution. Such provisions are understandable for national issues such as defense against terrorism or stimulating our country’s economy, but when the important topics under consideration on Kaua‘i are the allowance of dogs on the Eastside walk path or permitting temporary housing facilities by farmers on ag lands, having power restraints between our executive and our legislative branches amounts to an impediment more than a benefit. Indeed the competition between the branches is a deterrent to accountability rather than a safeguard. The differences between the agendas for our national government and our local government are huge. And the need for coordination between the council and the administration clearly outweighs the need to check their powers.
When a committee member asked for an expression from the audience as to their view of the proposed manager system the results were most interesting. Those having positions with the county government were uniformly opposed to it while the private citizens attending were uniformly in favor of it.
I understand that all county employees who spoke at the three meetings opposed the manager concept. The consistency of the views of those in the county administration apparently reflects an orchestrated and effective political discipline emanating from the mayor. He is the person who would be most-directly affected by the adoption of the manager system. He would retain his role as intergovernmental representative of the county and his function as to ceremonial matters, but his duties in managing the county operations would be ended and instead he would become the chair of the county council.
While our mayor should base his views about the manager system on whether it might best serve the people of Kaua‘i, it seems that he prefers the power and patronage opportunities of being the chief executive officer rather than being a leader in our policy-setting body. It is compellingly likely that the mayor has in some manner communicated his choice to his staff who are engaged in seeing to support for his decision. For county workers other than the mayor and his patronage appointees the only real difference they would see in the manager system is that they would be working for an experienced manager rather than a mayor who might not be. Yet distrust of change and pressure from the present administration is shaping their attitudes.
Presumably under the auspices of the mayor or on his behalf a petition is being circulated asking the Charter Review Commission to refrain from placing on the ballot any measure that would change our form of government from the current mayor-council form.
This petition is objectionable in two principal respects:
The sponsorship of the petition is nowhere indicated. When people are asked for their signatures on a petition they should be entitled to be informed clearly why and by whom they are being asked. And the absence of sponsorship disclosure should be of importance to any body being asked to consider the petition.
It would not be unreasonable if the petition-signers were being asked to indicate their preference for the mayor–council form of government, but instead reprehensibly they are being solicited to prevent the measure from being placed on the ballot and to stop our citizens from exercising the right to choose how they wish to be governed.
The mayor has been asked whether he was in any way involved in originating the petition and whether he approves its anonymity and the request to exclude the manger issue from the ballot. The mayor’s response in the style used by those who want to avoid the questions asked carefully ignored them and instead simply digressed and supported the work of the committee and the commission and basic petitioning rights.
Consideration of the manager proposal has been advanced to this point by the three members of the Charter Review Commission who volunteered to serve as a committee. Their efforts have been diligent and courageous and in disregard of the apathy on the subject by other members of the commission. At the next meeting of the Charter Commission to be held June 28 the committee will present its recommendations as to the manager proposal. It will be an interesting test of whether the people will be given the chance to determine the government structure they would like to have or whether the proposal will be derailed. Perhaps also at stake is the question whether democracy can survive a disciplined effort to stifle it. Is it too early to offer a requiem for another idea to better our society? We will soon know.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
