State senator critiques county charter amendments

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).