Kaua‘i voters yesterday passed five of six proposed County Charter amendments related to ethics, executive sessions, elections, growth and an auditor position. The county Charter Review Commission, a seven-member volunteer body appointed by the mayor, put three amendments on the
Kaua‘i voters yesterday passed five of six proposed County Charter amendments related to ethics, executive sessions, elections, growth and an auditor position.
The county Charter Review Commission, a seven-member volunteer body appointed by the mayor, put three amendments on the ballot after vetting several proposals over the past year.
Voters decided the County Charter should be amended to conform to state law requiring all County Council meetings to be open to the public unless allowed to be closed under the Sunshine Law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 92.
A group of residents fought this proposal from its infancy. They testified against it for months after it was unveiled in February at a Charter Review Commission meeting.
Residents Glenn Mickens, Ed Coll and Ken Taylor among others pushed to preserve Section 3.07 (E), which limits executive sessions to matters concerning the confirmation of appointees and consultations with the county attorney on claims. Underscoring the need for government to be as open as possible, they said the charter should remain more stringent than the state law which lists several reasons why government agencies can take certain agenda items behind closed doors.
Proponents of the amendment argue the charter was adopted before the Sunshine Law and has never been revised to recognize personal privacy. They also say the council should be able to meet behind closed doors to avoid putting the county at a disadvantage during labor or contract negotiations.
The council already cites the Sunshine Law when it enters into executive sessions. The county attorney has penned a legal opinion on why the council has been able to do this despite the apparent conflict with the charter, but the opinion remains guarded under attorney-client privilege.
The final vote was 17,205 “yes” to 4,685 “no.”
Another amendment the Charter Review Commission put on the ballot — which asked if the charter should be amended to expressly permit county board and commission members to appear on behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency except the board or commission on which they serve — failed.
As with the proposal dealing with executive meetings, a group of concerned citizens fought this proposed change to Section 20.02 (D) from its introduction.
Despite an affirmative advisory opinion in March from the county Ethics Board, they argued there is a conflict of interest when commissioners try to wear multiple hats. The board unanimously decided Charter Review Commission Chair Jonathan Chun, a private attorney, should be allowed to continue representing real estate agents before the County Council, for instance, and various private entities before the Planning Commission.
The County Attorney’s Office issued a written opinion on the matter, but it remains sealed under attorney-client privilege.
The vote was 7,133 “yes” to 13,751 “no.” This means the charter will remain the same and the Ethics Board will determine on a case-by-case basis whether an individual may appear on behalf of private interests before county agencies.
The third amendment from the Charter Review Commission was passed.
Voters decided they want the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election for the office of mayor and prosecuting attorney, regardless of whether a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast at the primary, to run in the general election.
The vote was 13,709 “yes” to 7,920 “no.”
Voters approved a proposed charter amendment put on the ballot by a citizens’ petition that will tie development to the level set in the county General Plan, which currently calls for an annual growth rate of tourist units of between 1 percent and 1.5 percent.
The high end of that range amounts to 1,000 additional tourist units between 2000 and 2008, according to the petitioners. But in that time period, the county has allowed the approval or construction of more than 4,000 tourist units.
The group which submitted the petition said reforming county government through a charter amendment is the only hope for ensuring that the General Plan, a guiding document updated every decade, will be followed.
“Ignoring the General Plan is creating enormous impacts on our infrastructure, traffic and highway congestion, and demands for groundwater, wastewater treatment, landfills, energy resources and emergency services,” said Keone Kealoha, a member of the petitioners’ committee, in June when the signatures for the proposal were submitted to the county. “It is also creating shortages of affordable housing, overcrowding at parks and beaches, and harming Kaua‘i’s character, pace and quality of life.”
Under the amendment, the County Council can adopt an ordinance that restricts the Planning Commission’s authority to approve “transient accommodation units” to a limited number of annual permits. This would allow the Planning Commission to continue to be responsible for the approvals of permits for such development.
But under the amendment, the council could also opt to not pass such an ordinance, leaving the responsibility of approving such development on the council’s shoulders. This route would require them to find that such development would be consistent with the General Plan, and only with the approval of at least five of the seven council members.
The vote was 12,800 “yes” to 7,099 “no.”
The Kaua‘i County Council put two amendments on the ballot that voters approved.
Voters decided they want the county to have an Office of the County Auditor to be established within the legislative branch to conduct performance and financial audits of funds, programs and operations of any agency, department or operation of the county. The vote was 15,921“yes” to 5,210 “no.”
Voters also approved a disclosure of interests question. It asked: “Shall an elected or appointed officer or employee, or member of a board or commission not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them where the member or any member of his immediate family has a personal financial interest or an organization in which they occupy a leadership position has a direct financial interest?”
The vote was 16,088 “yes” to 5,296 “no.”
• Nathan Eagle, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 224) or neagle@kauaipubco.com
