PUHI — Council members on Wednesday put the brakes on passing a bill that would regulate lobbying on Kauai in order to answer a few lingering questions and to have a full council present for the decision. Councilmembers KipuKai Kuali’i
PUHI — Council members on Wednesday put the brakes on passing a bill that would regulate lobbying on Kauai in order to answer a few lingering questions and to have a full council present for the decision.
Councilmembers KipuKai Kuali’i and Arryl Kaneshiro were absent from the meeting because they were in Washington D.C., representing Kauai at the National Association of Counties legislative conference.
The bill has been deferred and will come before the council again on March 9, when all members are expected to be present.
Nancy Kanna, government affairs, advocate on behalf of the Kauai Board of Realtors, and Jan TenBruggencate, both raised points on Bill 2614 that caught the council’s attention at Wednesday’s meeting.
“Ms. Kanna brought up some reasonable concerns,” said council chairman Mel Rapozo. “And it bothers me when we say let’s pass (a bill) and if it doesn’t work, we’ll fix it. I’m not going to support something today, praying it works.”
Kanna said KBR opposes the bill in its current form, and recommends it be modeled after the state.
Though she touched on various pieces of the bill, Kana’s message was that the measure is excessive and burdensome.
She recommended reducing the fine for violation from $1,000 to $500, and to remove the requirement for a lobbyists’ registration statement to be certified under oath by a notary.
“That is unrealistic and it creates a barrier,” Kanna said.
TenBruggencate said he supports having a lobbying bill, but it needs to be “clear, simple and transparent.”
“Toss this document into a workshop setting and let’s get it done,” he said.
The bill says a lobbyist is someone who for pay, or other consideration, engages in communication with a state or county officer or employee for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action.
As he reads the bill, TenBruggencate said, “Virtually anyone who has a business, who is doing business with the county government” could be considered a lobbyist.
He gave the example of someone building an extra room onto their house. He said if that person’s architect represents them in front of the county government, that architect would be considered a lobbyist, as would an electrician, for example.
“Now, because you’ve hired two lobbyists, you also have to register as a lobbyist and since you’re paying them (to speak) on your behalf, you now have to register the expenditure statements on that work,” TenBruggencate explained.
Councilman Gary Hooser, the introducer of the original bill, said that scenario doesn’t fly because those types of situations don’t fall under the definitions of legislative or administrative action.
Councilman Mason Chock said he thinks the bill purposefully creates a stringent law that “maybe in some ways causes unreasonable burdens.”
“I think that was the intent of the introducer,” Chock said. “If there is a need for simplicity moving forward, we (should) take another look.”
Hooser said he doesn’t believe the bill is burdensome and reminded the audience that the county has received many written testimonies in support of the bill.
“The only people concerned about this are the lobbyists,” he said.
He said he hopes the bill doesn’t get to the point where all of the supporters have to physically appear before the council to testify in support, in order for it to pass.
“If that’s the will of the council, though,” Hooser said, “so be it.”
