POLITICAL WON’T

POLITICAL WON’T: Our post Wednesday on the flakey “opinion” given to the charter commission regarding the county manager issue drew a couple of comments that deserve exposition, on an issue we kind of glossed over because it seemed to be self-apparent to us- but obviously not to everybody.

Doug White, who’s left a huge hole in the blogosphere since June when he last posted to his Poinography blog, asked

...under a manager system, who or what would lead the Executive Branch? If that leader is chosen by the Legislative Branch, then in effect there would be no autonomous Executive Branch, and thus no separation of powers. That's how I interpret the CA opinion.

Attorney blogger Charley Foster was of course more to the legal point saying

I think a better way for the county attorney to have argued it would have been to point out that plain text of HRS §46-1.5(1) requires counties to "establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization," and that the proposed manager system would establish only an "administrative and legislative structure" in violation of the plain language of the statute. As Doug points out, a "mayor" who is chosen by and serves at the pleasure of the council is not really an "executive." It is true that separation of powers is at the heart of the issue and of the three-branches requirement. But it's possible to argue that the plain meaning of the statute requires an independent executive department without having to invoke that other doctrine.

So let’s look at the words in the relevant constitution and statue passages.

In Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask opinion he cites the fact that:

Art. VIII, section 2, Hawaii State Constitution states: Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be provided by general law. Such procedures, however, shall not require the approval of a charter by a legislative body.

Charter provisions with respect to a political subdivision's executive, legislative and administrative structure and organization shall be superior to statutory provisions, subject to the authority of the legislature to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and functions...

HRS section 46-1.5(1) states: Each county shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government, which shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization, including but not limited to, the method of appointment or election of officials, their duties, responsibilities, and compensation, and the terms of their office.

Nothing there mentions any “autonomous” executive or an executive “branch”, certainly nothing about “separation of powers.” and as a matter of fact the law allows for the “county... to frame and adopt a charter” and determine “the method of appointment OR election of officials” (emphasis added).

Clearly the county may do whatever it pleases as far as not just the method of selecting or electing it’s executive officer but need not make any of them autonomous or adhere to any separation of powers doctrine. As a matter of fact, currently the executive and the administrative entities are indeed part of the same organizational structure with the mayor appointing and overseeing the department heads without any autonomy or separation of powers.

As matter of fact. unless you use an adjective to describe the word “executive”- one that isn’t in the law- no one can argue a county manager (CM) would not be an executive

All a county manager system would do is switch the executive to legislative oversight and make that position appointed rather than elected.

And, it would seem that by saying “appointment or election” the statue leaves room for a county manager type system. Any argument against an unelected executive is clearly a political rather than a legal one.

It should also be pointed out that currently the charter provides for an administrative assistant (AA) whose duties are very close to what a county manager’s would be. That position- who serves solely at the pleasure of the mayor- is one that has routinely overseen department heads on a day to day basis leaving the mayor free to look at the “big picture”, concentrate on “the vision thing” by delegating the nuts and bolts to the AA.

We also mentioned Wednesday that Trask included a section that makes it clear that no more than what is stated in the constitution and statute should be read into it- despite the fact that after saying that he proceeds to read into it separation of powers, checks and balances, autonomy and the lack of an election of the executive.

Trask writes:

According to the law, "The fundamental principle in construing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting it. This intent is to be found in the instrument itself. When the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the court, in construing it, is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument." State ex rel. Anzai v. City & County of Honolulu, 99 Haw. 508, 519, 57 P.3d 433, 444 (2002).

Moreover, a constitutional provision must be construed in connection with other provisions of the instrument, and also in the light of the circumstances under which it was adopted and the history preceding it." Blair v. Harris, 98 Haw. 179, 45 P.3d 798, 801 (2002).

So let’s look at Trask’s arguments one by one:

The phrase included in both Art. VIII, section 2 and HRS section 46-1.5(1) requiring that each county "shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization", is interpreted by the County Attorney's office to require each county within the state to have specific separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, which the proposed council-county manager form would not have.

Given that the words “separation of powers” aren’t in the law and the fact that there is currently no separation of powers between the executive and administrative entitles- note also the lack of the word “branches” in law- this argument is clearly erroneous especially since “intent is to be found in the instrument itself” and that one “is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument”.

Trask continues:

Furthermore, so as to not render either the, "legislative, executive, or administrative structure and organization," of the county superfluous, void or insignificant said branches need to be substantive and not merely formal.

We’re not quite sure what that means and whether it is a differentiation without a difference but assuming it isn’t, well, the current attachment of the administration to the executive belies irrelevance.

He then seeks to establish what may be called a four prong test.

The proposed amendment would be contrary to both the text and the intent of the State Constitution and the general laws of Hawaii, and therefore illegal, for the following reasons:

1. The State Constitution and the general laws on the subject clearly and unambiguously call for the counties to establish a legislative, executive, and administrative structure and organization of government.

True- and clearly that “structure and organization” is up to the county to determine as long as all three exist- which they would as we established under a county manager executive, certainly to the extent that they exist now.

2. Passage of the proposed amendment would deprive the public of their constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive.

It’s hard to say where he found a “constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive” since the words “democratically elected” not only do not appear but the statute specifically allows for an appointed executive.

And as to any national constitutional or statutory prohibition, how many hundreds of county manager systems exist and have presumably passed legal muster around the country?

3. The proposed council-county manager form of government would deprive the public of a democratic governmental structure that employs checks and balances that would ensure that no particular branch would get too powerful and abuse the representative system of democracy. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that the proposed amendment seeks to delete section 4.03 of the charter thus extinguishing the executive veto power.

We’re not quite sure what the relevance of this is but again the words “checks and balances” do not appear anywhere. Clearly this is a political argument and not a legal one.

4. Under the proposed amendment the council chair would be given
the title of "mayor” but would not exercise any executive authority. Such a titular mayor would not satisfy the mandate of either the constitution or the general laws on the subject.

Ceremonial mayors are common under county manager systems, where the executive is the county manager not the mayor if we’re looking for the “substantive” executive. As a matter of fact some mayors are even appointed by the legislative entity, some on a rotating basis from among the legislative members.

Trask implies that only a title of mayor bestows executive status- clearly an erroneous and presumptuous assertion.

The preconceived notions, the use of the straw man of the specific Lewis proposal to condemn all CM systems- illogically generalizing from the specific argument- and the outright interpretation based on additional language not found in law- especially when the law bans that- and causes Trask’s analysis to fall on it’s fallacious face.

-------

Also on Wednesday, we cited the inability of the council to compel administrative testimony without a formal investigation under the current charter as one of the good arguments for a CM system.

Doug also asked

... has the Council ever actually went the official investigation and subpoena route? If not, then they are fools for not at least trying to exhaust their existing powers before seeking a Charter change, aren't they?

That’s somewhat of a complicated question.- one that has roots in the political, statutory and fiscal realms.

Calling for and authorizing an investigation to obtain subpoena power every time an administrative person doesn’t show up when requested is pretty cumbersome and impractical.

For the last 10 years the council has at times sought to launch investigations. The first obstacle was the lack of any set method of doing so. After dickering around for a year or so they finally passed a resolution that defined a process. But then it became a political football as to which department to investigate first.

Originally it was to be the massive Department of Public Works but the word “massive” was the operative obstacle. Which division to investigate became a problem because so many of them were problematic. Finally a half a million dollars was appropriated to investigate one division but no one could decide which one to investigate.

But then a new council took office and with the departure of a majority of members- including the three main proponents, now-State Senator Gary Hooser, now 5th Circuit Judge Randall Valenciano and then-Chair Ron Kouchi, the newbies decided to investigate the police department instead- a subject well covered in KPD Blue.

The next decision was to, instead of spending lots of money to look at a tree amidst the forest, appropriate salaries for a county auditor position and staff to be able to essentially conduct investigations without having to deal with the cost and limitations of each investigation.

But again after procrastinating over the hiring, the County Attorney stepped in and said this would violate the prohibition of council interference with the administration.

Finally last November the voters passed a charter amendment establishing a county auditor under council services that was specifically exempt from the prohibitions on interference. A month or so back one was appointed by the council.

But really this has been an exercise in lack of political will all along with a majority of the council member eyeing the mayor’s job and not wanting to tie his or her own hands once they took office.

Clear as mud?

--------

With the holiday and resultant “so much basketball, so little time” next week we’ll be a little lite in posting- here’s a little lite reading regarding the whole Board of Ethics 20.02D business which we’ll try to address during half times and between games.