Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a two-part series on the county manager system form of government. The first segment ran on Friday. In the first part of this two-part series, which ran yesterday, I discussed the efforts
Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a two-part series on the county manager system form of government. The first segment ran on Friday.
In the first part of this two-part series, which ran yesterday, I discussed the efforts of Carol Ann Davis-Briant, a Charter Review Commission member and chair of its committee for county governance, toward having a proposal for a county manager system on the 2010 ballot.
Unknown to her, on May 27, 2008, the then-chair of the commission had made a request of the Office of the County Attorney “for guidance regarding amending the charter to allow a county manager form of government” and the “pros and cons” of such a proposal.
Following the July 28, 2009, commission meeting, a letter dated June 24, 2009, labeled confidential from a deputy county attorney but approved by the County Attorney in response to the request, was given to her and the other committee members. No explanation was given for the 14-month interval between the request date and the delivery date of the response.
The first half of the nine-page letter sought to answer the issue whether “the proposed form of council-county manager form of government is legal.” The gist of this segment was that the “proposed amendment” was violative of the State Constitution and Hawai‘i general laws because:
1. The public would be deprived of “there (sic) constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive;” and
2. The structure form deprives the public of a checks and balances government.
It should be noted that the proposal to which the “opinion” was addressed was an initial draft by Walter Briant in which the “mayor” was to be chosen from among the council members. A later form being considered provides for public election of a mayor.
The checks and balances argument is a legitimate policy question, but it is not a legal one. No judicial decisions are cited for the conclusion reached which is understandable as the mayoral office is not even mentioned in the state constitution.
The constitutional authority for a county to choose its form of government is sweeping. Contentions directed to the benefits or detriments of a particular form do not limit the power of choice. The letter opinion is indefensible.
The remainder of the county attorney letter claims to respond to the request made for a balanced discussion for the pros and cons of the county manager concept. Instead, it essentially attempts to refute points made by Mr. Briant supporting his proposal and wrongfully assumes that they are part of the proposed amendment.
The basic theme of the response is a compilation of criticisms of the manager concept. Space does not permit any comprehensive analysis of the letter’s comments, but a couple of illustration may be useful.
Mr. Briant had noted that one of the obvious benefits of the county manager system is that a person educated and trained to manage municipal affairs is better qualified than the current Kaua‘i standard that the administrator be 30 years of age and a resident of the county. The letter responds with pettiness that the manager proposal does not contain an age requirement nor mandate Kaua‘i residence.
The letter attempts to portray the International City/County Managers Association as a domineering overlord to which the manager would have primary loyalty. The author of the letter is apparently ignorant of the role of a trade association such as ICMA and that membership is purely voluntary and the manager’s duties are owed solely to his employer.
The ignorance is further exposed by the statement that citizen efforts for a Kaua‘i council-manager system may have arisen from an ICMA promotion. The facts are that when an ICMA representative was called to come to Kaua‘i in June of this year, ICMA was not aware of our interest in the manager system.
The letter asserts airily that claims were made that the manager system “would solve all of Kaua‘i’s problems,” but off course no such statement was made.
Our county attorney is reported to have said he took his position to be able to help his friend Bernard. As the manager system would reduce the power of the mayor, it appears that he is engaged in fulfilling this purpose and neglecting his lawful duties.
The failures by the Office of the County Attorney to follow good practice should be recounted. They include:
1. The request asking for pros and cons was a solicitation clearly beyond the scope of the county attorney’s office capabilities and function. It is not the role of the attorney’s office to provide partisan commentary on policy matters and its response should not have been made. The failure to make an evenhanded evaluation of the issues diminishes the integrity and credibility of any legal opinion expressed.
2. The delay in response of about 14 months after the request is inexcusable.
3. The State Sunshine law seeks governmental transparency. The attempt by the county attorney to avoid public release of comments on the pros and cons of the manager proposal lacks even a color of privilege and opinions on matters of law should be routinely made available unless they involve privacy considerations or relate to a litigation or claim.
After reviewing the county attorney letter, Ms. Davis-Briant tried to place its public release on the agenda for the August commission meeting so that our citizens might be made aware of its content and conclusions
In February, the chair, Sherman Shiraishi, had declared that he believed the commission agreed with releasing opinions related to the county manager system. But now he balked and did not accept her agenda request posturing that the release request should come from the committee. And then later even discussion of it at a committee meeting was prohibited.
This maze of obstruction was the final straw. Carol Ann concluded she could not be effective remaining on the commission and she regretfully resigned at its September meeting.
It is a major tragedy for the people of our county that a recognized governmental form in widespread use elsewhere can not be given a fair hearing on our island. Unless a citizens petition effort is mounted, it is virtually assured that the excesses and inefficiencies of our existing form of government will be continued.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
