Six proposals to amend the Kauai County Charter will be on the ballot at the General Election to be held on Nov. 4. Three of the measures being presented are proposed by the Charter Commission, two of the measures are
Six proposals to amend the Kauai County Charter will be on the ballot at the General Election to be held on Nov. 4.
Three of the measures being presented are proposed by the Charter Commission, two of the measures are proposed by the County Council and one measure is proposed through a citizens petition. It is the first time there have been proposals from all three potential sources.
In the case of the measures offered by the Charter Commission, one of them arose from the suggestion of a member of the public calling for a clarification of the process for election of the mayor and the county prosecutor and two of them arose from motions by a commission member. The commission member measures would relax requirements for county commission members serving private interests and restrictions on closed meetings of the County Council. It is noteworthy that at no time before the introduction of the measures offered by the commission member did any public testimony suggesting the need for the amendments he proposed occur and all public testimony after the introduction strongly opposed them. The commission simply ignored the voice of the public. The commission chose not to present for voter approval several other proposals that had been considered at commission meetings. Although it was the subject of more discussion than any other measure the commission failed to move forward a proposal by Commissioner Walter Briant seeking a citizen vote on the matter of changing to a county manager form of government. Substantial testimony and documentation on the subject were offered by citizen supporters of the manager system. Although there was minimal opposition to the concept in public testimony, the majority of the commission claimed they did not know enough about the measure to offer it for this year’s election. It remains to be seen if those commissioners will make any effort to become better educated about it and allow it to be presented in a future election. With the one proposal exception noted, the commission basically disregarded the input it received from the public.
While the 2006 Charter Commission offered 15 measures for voter approval, the output for the current commission was meager. The serving commission did not hold outreach meetings with the public as did the earlier commission, but it managed to issue an information paper concerning its three proposals. It is inaccurate in certain respects. Concerning the proposal for representation of private interests by commission members it is stated that Section 20.02D of the Charter is being currently interpreted to permit such representation. The only county agency involved is the Ethics Board and in neither of its most recent rulings on such representations is Section 20.02 D mentioned. No one in the public knows how the board may be construing Section 20.02D. Concerning the proposal relating to executive sessions by the County Council it is stated that Section 3.07E of the County Charter is not consistent with the State Sunshine Law. This is not the case. Section 92-71 of the Sunshine law provides that if a county has enacted a provision that is more stringent about mandating the openness of meetings than provisions in the Sunshine law then the county provision applies. The integration of the 3.07E provision with the Sunshine law is clear. The ballot question chosen by the commission is a deceptive trap for the unwary. It asks the voters whether the charter should be amended so that it conforms with the Sunshine law when, by its terms, the charter now provides greater openness than the Sunshine law. If you believe in open government vote “No.”
The proposal arising from the citizens petitions involves a shameful story of political manipulation. The citizen’s committee sponsoring the measure submitted as the ballot question to be presented to the voters the following accurate summary: “Shall the County Charter be amended to require that the County Council be responsible to ensure that the issuance of permits for hotels, timeshare and other tourist accommodations is limited to a number that is consistent with the planning growth range of the County’s General Plan?” The text of the measure is considerably longer than the quoted ballot question. The ballot question submitted was, over protest, rejected by the county clerk without explanation. In all proposed amendments in 2006 and all the other measures being presented with the citizens petition proposal, the ballot question used was a condensation or summary of the full text. It appears that our county officials wish to discriminate against the measure by offering a lengthy question almost certainly in the hope that voters might be confused and vote against the measure for that reason.
The two proposals offered by the County Council to require disclosure of conflicts and to establish an office for an auditor to review county operations, although inadequately described by the ballot questions, seem to offer reasonable reforms. The obvious question, however, is why the council chose to use its authority to submit proposed amendments. It had never done so before this election while there was a Charter Commission then serving. In one earlier instance when Salary Commission members believed a charter amendment relating to their function should be placed on the ballot, the council chair advised that their request should be given to the Charter Commission to which the council, at that time, deferred.
In a bizarre, unprecedented and scandalous move the county clerk has determined that the proposals should not be numbered or lettered. This, of course, inhibits identification of the proposals.
I do not have any firm recommendations as to the proposals relating to county elections, relating to disclosure of interests, and relating to the office of a county auditor. I would, though, strongly urge a “No” vote on the proposal relating to County Council executive sessions and the proposal relating to boards and commissions for the reasons I have mentioned above. I would also recommend a favorable vote on the proposal relating to the General Plan so that elected county officials would have a responsibility for visitor accommodations being limited to the level expressed in the General Plan.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island.
