KAUA`I CHARTER AMENDMENTS: VOTE “YES” ONLY ON “RELATING TO POST EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND “RELATING TO DISCLOSURES”.

KAUA`I CHARTER AMENDMENTS: VOTE “YES” ONLY ON
“RELATING TO POST EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND “RELATING TO DISCLOSURES”.

VOTE "NO" ON
“RELATING TO COUNTY COUNCIL TERMS”,
“RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR MANAGING DIRECTOR”,
“RELATING TO FINANCIAL PROCEDURES”,
“RELATING TO BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND
“RELATING TO TIME EXTENSION FOR ETHICS ADVISORY OPINIONS”

Only two of the seven Kaua`i Charter Amendments (pdf) on the ballot November 2 deserve a “yes” vote although in both cases the changes are small where major changes should have been made.

The two are the ones entitled “Relating To Post Employment Requirements For County Contracts” and “Relating To Disclosures”

The question “Relating To Post Employment Requirements For County Contracts” reads

“Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?”

By all rights this should be extended to five years or at least two. But one year is better than the six months that is currently in the charter.

The question “Relating To Disclosures” reads

“Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?”

This will at least add to those who are required to file financial disclosure statements although why it has to be charter amendment isn’t clear since there’s nothing in the charter that prevents the council from doing it by ordinance. There should be many more in county government filing disclosures that are currently not required to do so but one more is one more.

The other five proposed amendments are a hodge-podge of ill-considered and downright deceptive changes that do nothing to improve our charter and deserve “no” votes.

The question “Relating To County Council Terms” reads

“Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?”

This question indicates the Charter Commission is insane, asking the same question for the umpteenth time and expecting a different answer. Requiring councilmembers to run every two years keeps them more accountable. Whereas it can be said that administrative heads have “agendas” to accomplish that may take four years that’s not true of legislators.

The question “Relating To Qualifications For Managing Director” reads

“Shall the Mayor’s Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?”

This measure needs to go back to the drawing board. First of all it changes little. The list of qualifications is weak and the duties are few. The worst part is that the position remains solely an appointee of the mayor with no council confirmation. This is a problem with most of our department heads and what we really need is to make more positions subject to confirmation so as to add accountability. That would give the council some recourse in their oversight role when administrative officials “decline” an “invitation” to appear before the council. While we’re not a big proponent of the current proposals for a county manager hired solely by the council we sympathize with those who say this is just a poor attempt to placate those proponents.

The question “Relating To Financial Procedures” reads

“Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?”

It’s deja vu all over again with this trick questions about something being “changed to conform with state law”. In 2008 voters were deceived into removing a stricter standard for executive sessions from the charter with the same kind of wording asking if the charter should be “changed to conform with the sunshine law”. That resulted in less sunshine when uncritical readers thought they were voting for forcing the council into “complying” with the state sunshine law- a huge issue then as now.

This change would actually eliminate a charter requirement for what’s called “a standardization committee composed of three members” charged to “classify all materials, supplies, equipment commonly used by the various departments, offices or agencies of the county (who) shall prepare and adopt standards and specifications for such materials, supplies and equipment.” and a long list of other purchasing requirements that are apparently stricter than those in state law. Don’t let ‘em fool ya. Vote “no”

The question “Relating To Bidding Requirements For County Contracts” reads

“Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?”

Why in the world would you want increase the limit rather than eliminate it altogether? This provision has been abused in the past by breaking these non-bid contracts for moonlighting county employees with a conflict of interest into $499 chunks. Now they want to make them $999 chunks. Send a message and vote “no”

Finally the question “Relating To Time Extension For Ethics Advisory Opinions” reads

“Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?”

With all the problems with the Board of Ethics THIS is what they pick to change- giving them more time to make decisions that they seem to be incapable of making. Plus they leave in two provisions that say

failure to submit an advisory opinion within said [thirty (30)] forty five (45) days shall be deemed a finding of no breach of the code.

Opinions rendered or deemed rendered shall be binding on the board in any subsequent charges concerning the officer or employee of the county until said opinion is amended or revoked by the board.

With the way the BOE has made these “findings” by flouting the plain charter language if anything each opinion should be reached on a case by case basis. The way it is now, bad decisions are almost impossible to be overturned or even revisited. Not only that but the “automatic no breach of code” section should be removed. Instead they want more time to make the kind of decisions that have taken them six months or more in the past few years. If they can’t do it in 30 days what makes them think they’ll be able to do it in 45? Vote “no” to this nonsense.

For more information go to the Charter Review Commission’s page at the county web site.