Intermittently over the past several months readers of TGI Forum have been offered an exchange of views between Glenn Mickens and Alfred Laureta about whether the adoption of a county-manager system by Kaua‘i would be a beneficial change for our
Intermittently over the past several months readers of TGI Forum have been offered an exchange of views between Glenn Mickens and Alfred Laureta about whether the adoption of a county-manager system by Kaua‘i would be a beneficial change for our community. Mr. Mickens has presented a variety of reasons why a manager system would be an improvement over our present system. Mr. Laureta has observed that the problems mentioned by Mr. Mickens result from deficiencies in our county officials and not from failures of the existing system and argued that change is unnecessary when a cure can be to elect better people. Both men have made forceful comments in support of their position. But no meaningful resolution of the key issues has occurred.
In part this inability to achieve a consensus arises from the perennial disposition to have differing views on any political matter. However, the lack of cloture also occurs because of an important-but-difficult-to-quantify disparity in the essential nature of the two governmental systems.
The core concept of the manager-council system is to assign the responsibilities for performing the administrative duties of our government to the manager, displacing the mayor from these duties. Our County Charter currently provides for the mayor to be “the chief executive officer” of the county. If a county-manager system were adopted the manager would become the chief executive officer.
The manager system is preferable for at least two unanswerable reasons. First, the manager system contemplates that the person chosen would be one educated and trained for management of municipal affairs. Under the present system the mayoral election is almost always based on factors other than his or her management competence. The differential between any organization that has competent management and one that does not is not readily quantifiable, but it can be significant. As the county chief executive has responsibility annually to run operating and capital budgets in excess of $200 million, the savings potential from effective management would most likely be material. Second, the present system fosters rivalry between the administration and the council as they compete for county leadership. There is no real accountability and the rancorous posturing goes on. Under the manager system the manager is selected by and is accountable to the council which would include the mayor. This arrangement has operated harmoniously in communities in 45 states.
But will our voters be given the opportunity to decide whether they want to be governed under the manager-council system? The likelihood that they will is remote.
Proposals to amend the Kaua‘i Charter can proceed in one of three ways. They can arise from a citizens’ petition, from a resolution by the county council or from a submission by the Charter Review Commission. Political reasons would preclude any council resolution. To date the proponents of the manager system have not found a person or group willing to pursue the strenuous effort necessary for a successful citizens’ petition. The remaining alternative is for action by the Charter Review Commission. In recent years over 80 percent of the measures for voter action have originated at the Charter Review Commission.
The Charter Commission members are appointed by the mayor. If the manager system were adopted the power of the mayor would be changed and it is most likely that he (or she) would prefer his (or her) present status. It is to be doubted that an appointee would wish to act in a manner that he or she knows would be disfavored by the mayor. It is implicit that the power to appoint is to some extent a power to control.
The matter of a potential proposal for a manager system has been before the commission since 2005. Recently for the third time a committee of commission members has been named to consider the manager question. The earlier committees were nugatory because of the death or resignation of the members serving. It should be noted that the commission has appointed a separate committee for no other issue. Obviously the manager concept is a hot potato for the commission.
In the past the commission has evaded consideration of the subject on the grounds that it needs to have a specific proposal to review. That particular escape is no longer available for the commission as it has recently been given by a citizens ad hoc group a detailed proposal containing all applicable provisions.
But the inertial restraints that exist are substantial. Turnover of commission members has been heavy and the newly-appointed committee members are all new to the commission. The advisors to the commission are the county attorney and the Boards and Commissions offices. In both of such cases their department head is a mayoral appointment sensitive to the mayor’s needs. The attitude of the county attorney’s office has already been telegraphed by a communication expressing reservations about the manager concept. Although the content of the communication has been sharply criticized and acceptance of the legality of the manager concept by the Hawai‘i attorney general has occurred, the county-attorney stance remains an indicator of administration views.
For the manager measure to be included on the 2010 ballot requires the charter commission committee to act favorably on the proposal made and then gain acceptance by the full commission within the limited time available. While such an alignment of events is not impossible, the burden for the committee to achieve it would be heavy.
Regrettably, another opportunity for the betterment of Kaua‘i government appears to be slipping away.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
