Charter commission wangled into submission by Walter Lewis In the 2006 general election Kaua‘i’s voters gained an opportunity to improve our government when the charter amendment calling for a continuing term of the Charter Commission was adopted by a substantial
Charter commission wangled into submission
by Walter Lewis
In the 2006 general election Kaua‘i’s voters gained an opportunity to improve our government when the charter amendment calling for a continuing term of the Charter Commission was adopted by a substantial margin. This new arrangement would, most thought, enable the submission for voter determination such issues of importance to the people of the county as a county manager system and spending limits for the county.
The enthusiasm for these prospects was diminished somewhat when the mayor procrastinated on the appointment of the commission members for almost six months and failed to activate the newly formed commission which did not hold its initial meeting until the end of September 2007 or nearly 11 months after the election. Expectations for timely actions by the new commission were further reduced by its pronouncement that since the members held three year terms there was no urgency and the commission would only meet once a month. This leisurely pace is apparently designed so that no significant measures would be presented for voter determination in 2008. For example, a recent The Garden Island article quoted commission chair Jonathan Chun lamely trying to excuse the commission’s failure to process the charter manager proposal as a 2008 ballot question although it was vigorously supported in public meetings of the 2006 Commission.
To date the Commission has held only six meetings (one was canceled for lack of a quorum) and its predilections have become rather clarified. The testimony of the mayor and the council chair was sought by the commission and in less than 20 minutes of comments they said that they did not see any need for any major changes to the charter, a position it is virtually certain they have also conveyed privately to the members or some of them who were carefully chosen to carry out the restrictive views of the mayor. The testimony of no other County Council member or other county official has been sought.
The commission, at its outset, received a number of communications from citizens suggesting methods of procedure and matters that should receive attention but they were pocketed by the commission chair and only recently distributed to the other commission members. Of course, they have never been seen by members of the public. The commission rules requiring that communications be promptly distributed to members seem to have been violated and the policy of the preceding commission to make them available to the public disregarded.
The conduct of the commission gives every indication that they do not see any need to accommodate measures generally desired by the people. The commission has allowed only two proposals from any member of the public to be included on its agendas. Whether the commission will recede from that restrictive posture is not known.
The Kauai Charter calls for a Charter Commission to study and review the operation of the county government under the charter and if it finds changes are necessary or desirable to propose them. The Charter Commission whose services ended in 2006 was broadly active. It considered nearly 100 measures en route to its offering 15 of them for voter determination. It is instructive to note that none of the measures considered by that Commission was initiated by a commission member.
Interestingly, two substantive proposals for resolutions have been originated by a member of the current commission. One of these proposals relates to Charter Section 20.02D that provides no officer or employee of the county may appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency. On several occasions Jonathan Chun, an attorney, has represented private clients at the Planning Commission and the County Council. Despite the clear language of the charter section, Chun wangled an after-the-fact favorable decision from the county ethics board which refused to state the basis for its ruling. Despite the lack of rational justification for the decision Chun’s cause was undertaken by commission member Sherman Shiraishi, also an attorney. Shiraishi proposed Section 20.02 D should be changed so that “volunteer” members of county boards and commissions would be exempt from the requirement forbidding them to act for other interests before county agencies. While Shiraishi did not state reasons for his proposal it could be surmised he didn’t want to restrict his law practice. Shiraishi is also proposing repealing or amending Charter Section 3.07E that limits the matters which can be used by the council for its executive sessions. Despite direct testimony opposing both of Shiraishi’s gambits as failing to serve the public interest, he persisted and the commission at its March 24 meeting referred the Shiraishi proposals to the county attorney. Communications from that office do not generally become publicly known.
A definitive determination may not yet be possible, but every signpost is that the commission will block any proposal that disturbs the “establishment.” The bright expectation that an agency was being created to enable the formulation of matters of public interest into measures to be presented for voter determination has disappeared. Once again our county government is a source of disappointment in its failure to be a vehicle for governance by and for the people.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island.
