Until 2006, the Kaua’i County Charter provided for a Charter Review Commission to be appointed every ten years to study and review the operation of the county under the charter and to propose changes it found necessary or desirable. The
Until 2006, the Kaua’i County Charter provided for a Charter Review Commission to be appointed every ten years to study and review the operation of the county under the charter and to propose changes it found necessary or desirable.
The commission appointed to serve in 2005 and 2006 discovered that members of the public appearing at its meetings were interested in a very substantial number of amendments to the charter. It considered nearly fifty measures before finally proposing fifteen for citizen vote, of which one was a proposal to establish an ongoing commission for ten years to facilitate examination of matters not processed by the 2006 commission as well as new issues.
By far the most popular of the measures considered by the 2006 commission but not proposed for voter determination was the change of the executive branch of our government from a mayor system to a county manager system. The commission tried to explain its failure to offer a county manager proposal on the grounds that it had inadequate time to fully consider the issue.
So when the 2006 proposal to form a new commission in 2007 was strongly adopted by the Kaua’i voters, it was the expectation of many that it would turn its attention early to the county manager concept. But this was not the objective of the mayor and the council chair.
Although the term for the new commission began in January 2007, appointment of members was delayed and the commission did not hold its first meeting until September.
The consideration of the county manager system did not occur in the commission until February 2008, when one commission member, Walter Briant, suggested it should be pursued, but after failing to get other commission members to express interest, he was designated as a one-man committee to make a report on the matter.
In April, Mr. Briant offered a definitive proposal for consideration by the commission, but he was rebuffed by parliamentary maneuvers. Between April and July the commission was showered with materials about the manager concept.
At the July commission meeting, which was, in practice, the deadline time for submission of measures for voter action at the 2008 general election, the commission shelved the manager proposal saying it needed more time for studying it.
Finally, after a four-month interlude, at the November meeting the commission offered an agenda item for “Discussion on establishing a process for gathering and evaluating information related to the County Manager or other system of county governance.” If there ever was a phraseology designed to lead nowhere, this was it.
It is quite apparent to all that the commission is poised to engage in a hinder and delay posture to kill further efforts to bring the manager system forward and to frustrate a public overture to enhance our county government.
Examination of the underlying reasons for the failure of the commission to be responsive to the public will is appropriate. Let us consider some of them.
First, the charter specifies the duty of the commission as being to “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter.” No commission to date has ever engaged in such a study or review. It is self evident that an examination limited to conclusionary statements from incumbent officials is inadequate. A comprehensive examination would reveal numerous instances of issues that have impeded the quality of our governance.
Second, the commission is composed of persons selected by the mayor. Can the mayor be expected to nominate individuals who may propose the elimination or sharp reduction in the power of his office? And then the mayor reinforces his stand pat policy by telling (instructing?) the current commission at its initial meeting that no significant changes in the charter are needed.
Third, the charter specifies that the commission is to propose changes that it “deems necessary or desirable.” This terminology allows the commission members to substitute their personal views as to a measure instead of considering how the measure would be viewed by the voters.
This difference was illustrated by the discussion at the September 2008 commission meeting about whether to hold voter education gatherings on the three proposals being made.
The commission dithered helplessly about whether they should seem to advocate one side or the other on the measures they had proposed or whether their position should only be that of forwarding the materials to the public.
Fourth, the commission seems unable to analyze its mission or to operate effectively. After the October 2008 meeting was canceled without explanation, the commission meeting for November was held with a bare minimum of members present for a quorum.
Although the Charter clearly states that a commission member shall not serve as the commission chair for more than one year, a motion was made to reelect the incumbent for another term.
After the commission was reminded of the charter provision, the matter of electing a new chair was dropped and the designation of a successor was left up in the air.
When one member of the commission left the meeting, it dissolved in shambles without completing its agenda or even setting a date for its next meeting or voting to adjourn.
If we are to have a responsible government the deficiencies noted need to be resolved. Until they are, we can only expect that the commission attitude will be to comply with the inclinations of county officials rather than serving the interests of the public.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island.
