Last year Kaua‘i voters adopted a charter amendment providing for the Charter Review Commission to have continuous service rather than being appointed at 10-year intervals. Appointments to the new seven-person commission were due commencing Dec. 1, 2006, and have now
Last year Kaua‘i voters adopted a charter amendment providing for the Charter Review Commission to have continuous service rather than being appointed at 10-year intervals. Appointments to the new seven-person commission were due commencing Dec. 1, 2006, and have now all been made and confirmed. However, at this point nearly seven months after the effective date of the amendment, while other commissions have been activated and are operating, the Charter Commission has not even had its organizational meeting.
The last Charter Commission which disbanded after offering proposals to the electorate at the 2006 General election was widely rumored to have been directed by the administration to avoid presenting for vote several measures that would materially affect the way the County presently conducts its affairs. The principal proposal that was sidetracked was one to establish a manager as the chief county administrator.
The former commission member, who was generally considered to be the caretaker of the administration’s wishes, dismissed the county manager idea with the cursory remark that the people might be terrorized by it. This peremptory position was inconsistent with both the testimony offered and the prevailing trend in many other jurisdictions which disclosed voters had favored the manager system in the great majority of instances where it was offered.
The manager concept was thoughtfully presented by multiple testimony to the last Commission at its regular meetings and at area meetings held by the Commission at various locations on Kaua‘i. The citizen testimony was on all occasions strongly supportive of it noting that the handling of the business affairs of the County would most likely be better performed by a trained professional rather than a person chosen because of political factors.
In light of the failure to offer the county manager issue to the voters last year, however, the 2008 General Election is now clearly the optimum choice as there will not be a mayoral election in that year. If then adopted by the electorate, the measure would take effect in 2010 upon expiration of the present mayor’s term. The proposal is complex and before it can be placed on the ballot for voter decision, careful consideration must be given to its several aspects. It will be necessary to resolve whether the mayor title will be continued for ceremonial functions, whether all of the current mayor functions will devolve on the county manager, the procedures for the employment of, and, if necessary, the dismissal of the county manager, and other issues. The consideration of these matters is vital and time consuming.
Also before the county manager proposal can be presented by the Commission to the voters there are two hurdles that must be overcome.
First, the initiation of the operation of any new commission, including the Charter Commission, requires mayoral orchestration. The charter is defective in this regard. It does not specifically provide for the steps or timetable needed to be taken. It fails to state that where the mayor has a power he also has a duty. So it is necessary to rely on the integrity of the mayor. We will watch and learn.
Second, it is implicit that the mayor does not want the county manager system offered to the voters. The Commission, when formed, needs to recognize that under the Charter its duty is to the County and its people, that it has no obligation to follow the Mayor’ s preferences, and that its mission is to act in a manner faithful to its duties.
There are three ways a charter amendment can be presented for voter decision – by a Council resolution, by the Charter Review Commission or by voter petition. Council action on a county manager system is virtually unthinkable. Having the matter presented following Commission consideration with citizen input is clearly the preferable choice. Unless the Commission commences its deliberations in the relatively near future, however, citizens may be unable to ascertain whether the new Commission will be willing to offer the county manager proposal at the 2008 election before the time comes when a petition may no longer feasible. Should the Commission fail to serve the public interest by refusing to offer the proposal for voter decision, then the only vehicle allowing Kaua‘i’ s voters to determine how they wish to be governed, even though it is a cumbersome procedure, is to have a citizens petition.
It is not the function of the Commission to resolve or try to influence how Kaua’ i voters should decide the county manager issue. But with the clear expression of voter interest in the subject, Commission members have a fiduciary duty to enable the voters to make that decision. Those interested in a better government for our island must continue to remind the Commission members of their responsibilities and encourage them to act along this path.
• Walter Lewis is a Princeville resident and a regular contributor to the Forum page.
