All deliberative bodies require rules or by-laws for the orderly processing of their business. The Kaua‘i County Council is no exception to this axiom, and regularly at the outset of each year it adopts a set of rules. The current
All deliberative bodies require rules or by-laws for the orderly processing of their business. The Kaua‘i County Council is no exception to this axiom, and regularly at the outset of each year it adopts a set of rules. The current rules consist of 17 typewritten pages which contain numerous ambiguities, contradictions and omissions.
The current rules have, without any significant changes, persisted for many years despite their considerable deficiencies. In recent years the chair has used imaginative ways to patch the problems In numerous instances these efforts have not been beneficial. Last year a failed effort by council members Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara to obtain a place on the council agenda for a bill they wished to have considered generated pressure for a reform of the rules. This month the council appointed a sub-committee consisting of council members, JoAnn Yukimura (chair), Nadine Nakamura and Derek Kawakami to consider potential changes in the rules.
One immediate focus for the sub-committee relates to the issue involved last year. Rule 10 (a) provides for the introduction by any council member of bills and resolutions. It would appear implicit in this rule that a bill or resolution introduced would be given a place on an appropriate council agenda in due course after its submission. However, Rule 10 (c) requires that the chair must “initial” all bills and resolutions placed on the agenda, and the last council chair interpreted that section as giving him a veto power over any bill or resolution submitted with which he disapproved.
Public testimony has rather uniformly supported the notion that any council member acting alone should be entitled to have a bill or a resolution in proper form considered by the council. To limit that right in any way would vitiate the power of the member and could prevent him or her from carrying out a matter of importance to constituents. A possible alternative of having a requirement for two members to introduce a bill or a resolution would create serious problems under the Sunshine Law which bars serial discussions on any business matter among council members outside of a meeting. A similar issue relating to initialing by the chair occurs under Rule 15 (b) concerning communications. In my view every council member should be permitted to place communications on the agenda and the chair should not have a veto power to exclude them.
The council chair has no enumerated powers under the County Charter and his (or her) powers are only such as those the other members of the council may confer on him. It would seem appropriate that the chair should be given the right to schedule and arrange the agenda, but that right should not be able to exclude measures.
Another area of council procedure that has been widely criticized relates to public hearings. The rules provide that “public hearings are held to receive testimony from the public and council members should reserve their opinions and arguments for the appropriate council or committee meeting.” In a one size fits all approach oral presentations by the pubic are limited to three minutes per speaker. The system which is structurally designed for a one way flow of information to the council from the public testimony works acceptably in most cases.
However, in certain instances the existing procedure is unwieldy and ineffectual.
For example, when the subject matter is complex it may be important to have testimony from one or more qualified professionals. In this situation the three-minute rule is counter productive as qualified testimony should be allowed whatever time it may take. In these instances the quality of the legislation may well depend on a complete review of the topic and the rules should facilitate this potential. As testimony is usually intended for the Ho‘ike audience as well as thought present at the meeting, it would seem that a witness who prepared and distributed written testimony should get a time discretion.
The one way information flow is inappropriate when a dialogue is needed to prevent any enactment from unreasonable results or illegality. While the council has in the past on rare occasions used what it calls “workshops” they are not mentioned in the Rules and the practices to be observed for their convening and their operation are not known. As I have recently mentioned certain terms of Bill 2386 are most likely illegal in their present form and a responsible dialogue is needed to prevent an enactment that would require litigation to unravel. An appropriate amendment to the Rules should be made to accommodate this and other similar situations.
In addition to the matters discussed there are a number of other areas of the rules that warrant change and it is hoped that the sub-committee will be diligent in its efforts to improve and modernize the Rules. I intend to offer my suggestions in this regard to the sub-committee.
Having sound rules and observing them are essential for the proper functioning of our council. In several important instances changes in the rules are vital. It is not an appropriate occasion urge the shopworn maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” because to do so would retain the impediments to improvement that are now troublesome.
Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
