NAWILIWILI — Disagreement over Kaua‘i County Council rules of procedure took center stage Wednesday after committee members learned their vote not to approve an amendment to the plastic bag ban may have killed the bill. “This whole thing for me
NAWILIWILI — Disagreement over Kaua‘i County Council rules of procedure took center stage Wednesday after committee members learned their vote not to approve an amendment to the plastic bag ban may have killed the bill.
“This whole thing for me has been rather embarrassing,” Council Chair Jay Furfaro said.
Councilman Mel Rapozo on Feb. 9 introduced Bill 2400 after receiving complaints that the bill banning plastic bags from points of sale could be posing a health threat to customers at ready-to-eat food establishments.
The council approved Ordinance 885 on Oct. 12, 2009. The bill took effect Jan. 11 of this year.
Since the bill became law, restaurant owners and industry workers have come forward, saying contamination from bacteria in reusable bags poses a health risk, plus spilled food is causing paper bags to rip open.
The council’s five-member Public Safety and Environmental Services Committee on March 16 deferred its decision on the amendment. Committee Chair Mel Rapozo and committee member Dickie Chang voted for the deferral while JoAnn Yukimura and Tim Bynum voted by remaining silent during the roll call.
The fifth committee member, Derek Kawakami, recused himself from the vote, alleging a conflict of interest due to his family ties to Big Save.
With the committee split, council members believed a tie vote would keep the amendment stuck in committee.
A motion for deferral — initiated by Chang, who wanted more time to receive answers from a state health official regarding health concerns — failed after ending up in another tie vote.
But when a motion to approve the amendment was on the table, Chang voted against the approval, along with Yukimura and Bynum. Rapozo was the sole “aye” in the 3-1 vote.
Committee members thought this action would result in the item being picked up by the full council next Wednesday, even thought the recommendation from the committee was not to approve the amendment.
Business went on as usual for the remainder of the day. But at one point County Attorney Al Castillo apparently told council members the bill may have been killed by the vote.
“I have been told by staff that we didn’t actually achieve what we wanted to, which was to get the bill out of committee,” Yukimura said.
Furfaro asked Castillo to take the stand and answer some questions.
“I am hearing that the way the vote went, the item was disposed of and does not need to go to the full council with a recommendation not to approve,” Furfaro said.
Castillo said he was unaware of rules that would show otherwise.
“I don’t know of any enabling council rule, Robert’s Rules or parliamentary procedure in matter that has not been approved by the committee to move out of committee,” Castillo said. “I know that your council rules provide for a committee report.”
Furfaro insisted several times that council rules state that committees only have the power to recommend bills to the full council.
“It doesn’t say it only goes to the full council if it has a positive vote,” Furfaro said. “So if we have a negative committee vote on the recommendations of the committee, it should go to the full council.”
But Castillo said the report would reach full council for informational purposes, not to be voted upon.
“I’m dismayed, I’ve been here five years,” Bynum said. “I didn’t think any bill could get fully approved or killed in committee.”
Bynum said he has always worked on the assumption that a committee only made recommendations to the full council. If the rules allow for bills to be killed in committee, he said, then three council members could do such when a majority at full council could have been in favor of a bill.
Castillo said he wasn’t telling council members that the bill in this situation could not be moved out of committee to full council, but he didn’t know of any rules allowing it. Castillo asked for time to do some legal research.
Rapozo said the only way the bill would make it to the full council is if it passed committee.
“Since I was elected in 2002 until now, I’ve always worked under the assumption that if it did not pass the committee it did not make it to the full council,” he said.
The amendment could have been killed if a motion to approve the bill failed and a motion to receive it passed, Rapozo said.
“If we don’t do the motion to reconsider, (the bill) pops up again on the agenda,” said Rapozo, adding that he could be wrong. “But that’s how I read the rules.”
Bynum sided with Furfaro, saying that what happens in committee is only a recommendation to the full council.
Yukimura said that in the state Legislature, bills that don’t get committee approval come to a halt. But at council it’s a different process.
However, to clear up any doubts, Yukimura asked to reconsider the vote, make an affirmative vote to send the bill to full council, and “at least get this piece of business done.”
Bynum, seeing no alternative, asked if he would have to vote yes on a bill he had intention to vote no.
“It’s called addition by subtraction,” Rapozo said.
County Clerk Peter Nakamura said committee members should take an affirmative action to move the bill to full council, otherwise they would “go down a road that is little bit unclear.”
If committee members approved a motion to reconsider the vote, it would turn the clock to the point right before the final action, Nakamura said.
While some council members scrambled to interpret Robert’s Rules of Order, Furfaro said council rules supersede Robert’s Rules.
“Our rules say where we have precedence over Robert’s Rules of Order,” he said.
Furfaro said council rules say the committee has to make a recommendation to the full council.
“That’s the rule I cannot find,” Rapozo said.
In the end, committee members unanimously approved Yukimura’s motion to reconsider the vote.
Bynum then made a motion to move the item out of committee and refer it to the full council without a recommendation. His motion was unanimously approved.
Almost as a reflection to so much confusion, when a staff member re-stated Bynum’s motion, asking for a roll call vote, she said the motion was to refer the bill to full council “without reservations,” causing an instant reaction from council members.
Visit www.kauai.gov for the next meeting’s agenda.
