The proposal to have a vote by county residents on a county manager system is prominently on this year’s uncrowded agenda of the County Charter Review Commission. Although some commission members have claimed that the proposal is unduly complex, it
The proposal to have a vote by county residents on a county manager system is prominently on this year’s uncrowded agenda of the County Charter Review Commission.
Although some commission members have claimed that the proposal is unduly complex, it is really quite simple. The existing system provides for a mayor, to be elected by popular vote, who is empowered to be the chief executive officer of the county. Apart from vote-getting, the only requirements for the position are being 30 years of age and a resident of the county.
The county manager proposal provides for a manager to be appointed by the county council and empowered with the same executive functions as the mayor has now, except the veto power. The person appointed would have to meet education and training experience in public affairs administration requirements.
The basic and very understandable difference is that under the county manager system, the business affairs of the county would be managed by a person with executive qualifications instead of someone who may have no such qualifications. Kaua‘i County has an annual budget of about $160 million of operating expenses, and it employs over 1,000 persons. It is clearly in the interests of Kaua‘i’s residents and taxpayers that the county’s operations should be managed efficiently.
The concept of the county manager system was first presented to the Charter Review Commission serving in 2006. It was considered at several meetings of the Commission and was strongly supported by members of the public who testified at such meetings. Although two members of the Commission, Louis Abrams and Linda Moriarty, voted favorably on putting a county manager charter amendment for a public vote, another commission member declared that “the voters are not ready for the program” and the remaining members fell into line and voted to not advance the proposal.
The 2006 commission ended its term in September 2006 and included as one of its fifteen offerings of proposed voter decisions in the November 2006 general election a measure to change the Charter Review Commission from one convening every ten years to one commencing in 2007 that would be in continuing session. The measure was adopted by Kaua‘i voters as a vehicle for advancing proposals submitted to the 2006 Commission but not acted upon. However, the hoped-for continuity did not occur as the then-mayor failed to make timely appointments for the new commission and it did not finally organize until September 2007.
In February 2008 one member of the new commission, Walter Briant, proposed that the commission consider the county manager topic and sought to have a committee formed for this purpose. None of the other commission members were inclined to act on his proposal so Mr. Briant, after consulting with interested citizens, prepared and submitted a definitive text for a Kaua‘i county manager system in April 2008. Although again a substantial volume of public testimony favored the program as developed by Mr. Briant, and the commission was given a large amount of data about similar systems in use elsewhere, he was unable to obtain action by the commission to offer the measure to the Kaua‘i electorate at the 2008 general election.
In both commissions it was apparent that politics was at work. The mayor recognized that if the concept was adopted by the voters, the executive powers that he and future mayors would have would be ended and his opposition to any significant changes in the Charter was publicly communicated. It is not known whether the mayor or his staff conveyed a message privately to any one or more of the Commission members about his concerns, but it is likely. The commission members are, of course, appointed by the mayor and it was evident that the majority of the commission members respected the potency of the establishment and chose not to disrupt its hegemony.
The concept of a proposal for a county manager system was considered by the Charter Review Commission at its Feb. 23, 2009 meeting. Instead of entertaining the system proposal itself, however, as it has with all proposals on other topics, the Commission chose to pursue a diversionary procedural game and examined two options given to it by the boards and commissions administrator to refer the proposal into a sub group, one of just commission members and the second with public members. After some discussion, the Commission chair selected the first option and proposed that a committee of three Commission members be formed to investigate and report on the subject. With characteristic ineptitude, the Commission failed to fully implement the arrangement, naming only two members to the committee and leaving open the selection of the third. A key inclusion on the committee is Carol Ann Davis-Briant who is considered an active supporter of the concept. It may be that the Commission chair believes that he is empowered to name the third member, and will do so without action by the Commission, but the status remains in doubt at this time.
Calls at the February meeting by members of the public for setting a time for a fish or cut bait action on the manager proposal were ignored by the Commission.
A county manager system is in effect in the majority of cities and counties of about the same size and population as Kaua‘i and it is acclaimed as being significantly more economic and effective in controlling administration of public affairs than a mayoral system. It is likely that if given the chance to vote, the Kaua‘i electorate would favor a manager system — and this position is terrifying to our establishment. It will be highly intriguing to see how this plays out in the Charter Commission. Stay tuned.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island.
