State Sen. Jonathan Chun sees Tuesday’s approved Kaua’i County Charter
amendment empowering the County Council to audit county departments and
programs as a potential waste of taxpayer money.
Since the council meets
every week all year long, bringing in the appropriate county department heads
or other county personnel and asking the right questions, and hiring an
accountant for the council staff would accomplish the auditing function more
efficiently, he said.
“I don’t have a problem asking for that kind of
information, but do you need a charter amendment to get it done? I don’t think
so,” said Chun, a former county attorney. “Why are we going through this
procedural stuff where, as a practical matter, you can get the same information
and answers? I just see this as another way of spending money where it might
not seem necessary.”
And external audits cost big bucks, said Chun. The
council’s desire to audit departments and programs is patterned after the state
auditor, which falls under the service agencies of the Legislature, he
continued.
The Legislature needs an auditor to keep track of state
departments during the other 305 days of the year the Legislature is not in
session, he added.
“I think there’s a valid point about an audit. What I’m
more concerned about is, you might have the power to audit, but what are you
going to do with it?” Chun said.
Voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the
charter amendment question: “Shall the council be empowered to audit the
performance of county departments and programs?” There were 15,442 yes votes
(69.7 percent) to 4,267 no votes (19.2 percent).
Another charter amendment
question was voted down nearly as definitively. “Shall the requirement that
members of the Planning Commission have knowledge of environmental, business
and labor concerns be deleted?” was answered no by 58.8 percent (13,037) of the
voters.
Chun was a deputy Kaua’i county attorney in 1992 when a charter
amendment took effect, mandating the Planning Commission have at least two
members each with backgrounds in business, environment and labor.
Chun was
joined by others in opposing that proposal before it was passed by voters. He
warned the 1992 council that there would be problems with the proposal. This
week, he said he still thinks there are problems with this section of the
charter.
Back in 1992, Chun told the council there would be confusion over
“if you have this knowledge, do you represent that knowledge” as a commission
member. He wrote an opinion that, although the commission members are required
to have working knowledge of those certain areas, they don’t necessarily have
to vote along those lines.
Staff Writer Paul C. Curtis can be reached
at pcurtis@pulitzer.net or 245-3681 (ext. 224).
