Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you you you

Good afternoon, everyone. Will the Government Relations Ethics and Transparency Committee meeting of June 2nd, 2026 please come to order? Thank you. It is 1.46 p.m. I apologize for the delay. We were trying to figure out how to continually organize this very lengthy agenda, but we're here now. I am the vice chair of this committee, Nohelani Uuhajins. Member Batongan is excused today, so I'll be acting as chair for this meeting. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone is in the room, vehicle, workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. We would usually begin with Councilmember Tom Cook, but he is excused today, so we will begin with Councilmember Gabe Johnson. Aloha and good afternoon.

Aloha and good afternoon, Chair, Council members, community members. There's no testifiers here at the Lanai'i District Office, and I'm alone on my side of the office and here and ready to work. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Chair Alice Lee, aloha and good afternoon.

Aloha, Chair and everyone. I'm home alone in my workspace and looking forward to your meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Poulton, aloha and good afternoon.

Aloha wina ala kakou, streaming live and direct from the council chambers with all of you people, thank you.

Us people. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez, aloha and good afternoon. Me people here.

Aloha wina ala. Nice to be here in person. There are currently no testifiers at the Moloka'i District Office. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. And Council Member Shane Senente, aloha and good afternoon.

Aloha, good afternoon. No testifiers and Hana, Chair, happy to be here.

Thank you, and last but not least, Council Member Yuki Leisun, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, nice to see you all, and what a great agenda.

Oh yeah, it's very full. Thank you. From Corporation Council, we have Deputy Corporation Council Colby and Law Control Specialist, I don't know how to say this person's name, but I don't see them, but if somebody could say their name for me. Sorry, I don't want to butcher it, so if you would say it, then I could hear it.

Yeah, it's Heather and Drannington.

And Drannington. Heather, I can say. Andrannington, okay, cool. Very nice to see you in chambers and in the elevator. We also have county clerk, deputy county clerk, budget director, boards and commissions liaison, board of ethics, executive director, legal counsel until 3.15 today, and the cost of government commission chair, as well as our wonderful great committee staff. Good afternoon, everyone. Please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. I saw a few testifiers sign up. So testifiers wanting to provide testimony should sign up in the lobby, join the online meeting via the Teams link or call into the phone number noted on today's agenda. Written testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via the e-comment link at MauiCounty.us backslash agendas as well. Under the Sunshine Law, the Chair will receive oral testimony for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and as the item is called up. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking on the raise your hand button. If calling in, please follow the prompts via phone star five to raise and lower your hand star six to mute and unmute. Staff will add names to the testifier list in the order the testifier sign up or raise their hands. For those on Teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you're logged in under or the last few digits of four digits of your phone number when it is your time to testify. At that time, staff will also enable your microphone and video. Please ensure your name appears in Microsoft Team as a name you prefer to be referred as or anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you're in person, please notify staff that you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item, and if you are still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you are done testifying or you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on . channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiCounty.us backslash agendas. We will do our best to take up each person in an orderly fashion, and right now, staff, if you will please call the first testifiers wishing to testify at the beginning of the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The first testifier is Lauren Akitake, to be followed by Mike Moran.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members. My name is Lauren Akitake. I am the Executive Director and Legal Counsel to the Maui County Board of Ethics, and I am here today in support of Resolution 2695, which proposes a charter amendment allowing the reappointment of Board of Ethics members for one successive term without any intervening waiting period. I apologize, I have a previously scheduled 3.30 p.m. appointment today, so I'm testifying at the beginning of the meeting, and I will be available via Teams until 3.15, and thereafter, my staff attorney, Chris Tsukiyama, will be available via Teams. The board submitted a similar proposal in 2024 for the ballot, but it was incorporated into a broader charter amendment for all boards and commissions, which was not approved by the voters. Accordingly, we're requesting that this proposal be placed again on the ballot, this time solely for the Board of Ethics. While this proposal was important in 2024, it's even more critical today given the board's expanded presence and workload. The Board now has full-time staff, and for the very first time in history, it has the capacity to proactively address complex ethics issues and long-term policy initiatives, rather than solely responding to matters as they arise. The proposed amendment would also improve operational stability by reducing the risk of quorum or vacancy-related disruptions. The board is a quasi-judicial body and its members develop substantial institutional knowledge that becomes increasingly important as the board undertakes multi-year projects that often extend beyond a single member's term. For example, the board is currently seeking expanded jurisdiction over former employees and also approved draft lobbyist rules and proposed a proposed nepotism ordinance modeled after the state's law, all of which will be discussed with the Great Committee in July. These initiatives require significant board deliberation, drafting, public input, council review and approval, and board implementation, followed by ongoing administration and enforcement. As these policies are tried and tested, the board's understanding of the intent, development and structure is essential to ensuring that implementation is consistent and effective. Allowing one successive term would preserve that expertise and continuity at a moment when the board is no longer solely reactive, but actively shaping the county's ethics framework to uphold public trust. For those reasons, the board respectfully requests your support for resolution 2695. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Member Palten, you have any clarifying questions?

Thank you for your testimony. What would that total year be like if they serve the successive term? Is it 10 years or 12?

Total would be 10, so five and five.

And you think that whatever it is that they're doing, they couldn't, I mean, we don't even get five-year terms and we're elected and that's appointed to be the same amount of time as we get on five different elections. And I mean, I would say our work is just as policymaking as well.

So now we're able to do policymaking. So I can give you an example. So Chair Steve Sturdivant, who termed off, he helped hire me and to get us on the ballot to have full-time staff. And now he's termed off with all that institutional knowledge and would have a willingness to serve again. and he is gonna provide written testimony for our nepotism rule and our lobbyist rules because he was so integral in getting us here and so he understands why we need those two items. So if he had been able to continue on, those are policy initiatives that we would have loved to have him on the board for.

And it's not as effective as him participating from outside the board as a testifier and whatnot?

but we'll take what we can get, because we can't have him as a board member right now, but as a board member, he would have been able to do more and consistently be engaged with the board.

And you think that the voters would differentiate between the Board of Ethics and all the rest of the boards and commissions?

Well, that's the concern, and the hope is that we will have to do some education. One difference with us, then there are some other quasi-judicial boards, but in particular, we are a quasi-judicial board, and we have only been here now, the office, for 10 months, and we are starting on some big initiatives. So hopefully those factors will help persuade some people to support this.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Member Sinansi.

Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo, Ms. Akitaki, for your testimony this afternoon. You mentioned 2024. It did not get on the ballot on 2024. Was that from the commission?

It got rolled with the other boards and commissions. So the question was for all boards and commissions, because there's quorum issues for all boards and commissions. So I understand that decision, but it didn't pass.

Okay, and this went to the Charter Commission?

No, I think we put it on the, if I may, I think we put it on the ballot, but it didn't pass the electorate.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Chair. Of course.

Members, any other clarifying questions before we move on? Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. Next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Mike Moran on Teams.

Aloha, Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Mike Moran. I'm testifying for the Kihei Community Association in support of Rizzo 2687. I apologize, I have a frog in my throat, but I know you want short testimony with that agenda, so I will try and keep it brief. uh we speak in support of this uh it would fund so many uh items and issues that are of importance to the kea community association uh we saw a walkable bikeable we've been trying to get a walkable bikeable since last century um working with the wetlands, recycling, all these issues that are listed as important to the Kihei Community Association. So anything that can be funded in support of issues like this, we are in support. So we hope it will get on the ballot and that the voters will approve it. So thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, oh.

Oh, Chair.

I see you, Gabe, go ahead. I'm sorry, Member Johnson, please go ahead.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Moran. I know you wanted a short testimony, but you said you're speaking for Kihei Community Association, yes?

Correct. Yes, it gets confusing sometimes. I was the president for way too long. I am no longer the president, but the current president has asked me to continue to testify for the association.

okay um the walkable bikeable uh uh you that you mentioned is really kind of rings true now and i i know you guys suffered from the kona lows and and the damage there i you think this money would help as as well like for this specific example for the kona lows yeah i think it would uh we um you know we are north uh south routes are uh very limited

And with South Kihei Road being perpetually, almost perpetually closed, it leaves us with just the highway. And yes, there are some cyclists who ride the highway, but not cautious ones like myself. And certainly we don't want our children walking on that highway. Anything that can be done, it would help with the north-south collector road, which would really firm up our walkable, bikeable area.

Thanks for that clarification. We want more resilient communities, walkable, bikeable, everything that you just mentioned. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Kai Nishiki on Teams.

Aloha, Chair, committee members. Let's see, testifying on two items today, Reso 24-1. use of the Open Space Fund to help keep those spaces clean and safe, and so fully support that. Also, Reso 2687 for funding for the Climate Action and Resilience Thank you, Council Member Johnson, for proposing this. It's obviously very, very timely. State of Hawaii adopted the green fee, and this is now an opportunity for Maui County to demonstrate similar leadership and provide a funding source for implementation of the plan, which is awesome. Whether we get there by this pathway or by ordinance, as long as we get there, thank you very much for pushing forward on this. Tune in to the ADEPT committee discussion and lots of good information provided there and hope to have that additional information about all of the funding sources that are going to implement climate action and resilience efforts. I do think that the idea of the dashboard is really great, Councilmember Johnson, because we need to be able to track and understand what this money is being spent on, on all of the good things, but also so that we can show up and testify on the things that we don't support, like shoreline hardening and use of these funds, which I believe is inappropriate. can't be destroying our environment to protect a road or something ridiculous like that. We have to protect our beaches for our future generations. But hey, that's going to be in tomorrow's committee. So I did appreciate member Batongan's discussion about what do we do when values clash and there are priorities. So I do think it would be good to put in some guardrails on these various funds so that the public is assured that the finances are being spent um on the priorities uh that are that are identified um so i appreciate that council member palton also stated that like hey you can't just create these funds or elect these people and then just walk away and hope everything goes well like you got to stay engaged in the process so I've stayed engaged in the process for all my life, and heck, I'll probably be here bothering you guys for the next 20 years. So look forward to the discussion. Mahalo nui.

Thank you, Member Nishiki. I almost called you Mayor Nishiki. Thank you, Ms. Nishiki. I do that to everyone. Member Johnson, I see your hand up.

Thank you, Chair. Just a clarifying question for Ms. Nishiki.

Ms. Nishiki, can you please come back? There we go. Thank you.

Hi, Mr. Shiki, just a clarifying question. I know we only have three minutes, but you did say something really quickly. You said, uh, you, uh, either ordinance or charter amendment. And I didn't know if you had a preference or you don't have a preference as long as the guardrail, all the things that you mentioned, but did you have a preference between ordinance and a charter amendment? Oh, you're muted.

You're muted. Sorry, that's a really tough question because, you know, before I listened to the discussion, I was like, oh yeah, this is awesome by Rezzo. And then they're talking about the flexibility and stuff. And so, you know, flexibility can sometimes be a good thing or a bad thing. I definitely like the idea of dedicated funding for resilience It's just tough because a lot of things get roped into resilience, like seawalls, for instance, get roped into resilience. And so it can just be a tough conversation, I guess. wow i i don't envy you guys's decisions that you have to make um but like i said whatever gets us to the finish line darn you know like i i just got to support the process and uh stay and engage thank you though thank you thank you yeah of course thank you any other questions for mr nishiki seeing none thank you very much for your testimony next sfire please

Chair, that's currently all the testifiers signed up to testify at the beginning of the meeting. May staff do a last call?

Please.

This is the last call for oral testimony at the beginning of the meeting. If you would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or raise your hand on teams and staff will unmute you. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated they wish to testify.

Thank you. Okay, first up on the long agenda is resolution 25-215, the first charter amendment sitting on today's agenda. In total, the committee received 14 charter amendment proposals. Today, I intend to hear the first seven resolutions listed on the committee agenda as they all relate to the Office of the County Clerk. Once we've exhausted today's discussion, I will recess this meeting I'm sorry, I will recess this great meeting into the next scheduled meeting at 1.30 on June 16th, 2026. At that time, Committee Chair Patongan will come back to take up the remaining charter amendments. Before we begin our discussion, I want to mention, although we have received 14 charter amendments, one has already been adopted. It's one of Member Paulton's one. Resolution 25-135 relating to the Planning Commission's review of the general plan and land use ordinance was passed on second and final reading at the July 8th, 2025 council meeting. So with that resolution, we do have a total of 15 charter amendments to consider. So I do want us to be extremely mindful of what we do in today's meeting and the next, as we do not wanna overwhelm the voters at the ballot, box, sorry, that was a lot of alliteration, this November. To keep us organized, a document was distributed this afternoon that provides a summary to each of the proposals and it follows the order on the committee agenda and includes amendments, purpose, backgrounds, and intended effect. Now with that, let's begin discussion with resolution 25-125 proposed charter amendment with a notice and conduct of public hearings. The purpose of resolution 25-215 is to place on the next general election ballot the question of whether the revised charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended effective January 1, 2027 to clarify that the council board and commission meetings must be publicly noted, noticed and held in compliance with the state law by eliminating the outdated requirement to publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county and replacing them with the term public hearing with public meeting charity as this is yours. If you would like to, you're welcome to say anything. Yes.

Before we get started on the first one, I asked Director Rotz to join us, and I'd like to release him from the obligations of being here, of my request, to discuss the idea of considering 14 with one already with approvals to be on the ballot. So, for the members, the idea was not voting on the seven today and the seven that would come up in the recess meeting date, and that we would, you know, rank all of the proposals in order of preference to be on the ballot, because as Vice Chair has said, don't wanna overwhelm the voters with 15 proposals, or at least I don't and she doesn't. And I've heard comments from my colleagues that they'd prefer not to as well. And so after speaking with Director Rotz, He recommended we vote on them and we can still do a ranking at the end. And then we can have discussion on where the items are at in the ranking of all nine of us. And then have a discussion on how many people would we support being on the ballot after we do those votes? And then we could vote to reconsider and not approve to be on the ballot the ones that we may have voted on to be on the ballot. And so I may request Director Ratz to comment. comment on my understanding of this proposal, of protocol.

Yep. So we're gonna discuss and vote today on the seven, or hopefully the seven, and then on the 16th, discuss and vote on the other seven, and then discuss with, while everyone's here, which we're short a couple people. Okay. Director Rotz?

Thank you, Chair. I think Council Member Fernandez explained the situation well as we understand it under the Sunshine Law and your council rules. No action is final at any meeting until the body adjourns. So again, you can go through each resolution one by one. And if you end up at the body concluding that you have too many proposals moving forward, then the option for reconsidering any of those resolutions would be available to you. So you could then go back and pare down the list of proposals one by one as well at the end of the deliberations. Thank you, Chair.

Sounds good. We will definitely recess this meeting. Thank you. Mahalo, Director Atz. Thank you very much. Okay. Chair Lee, did you want to have any opening comments? If not, I can pass the mic to clerks and then Corporation Council.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. I'm proposing this on behalf of the clerk's office, and so they can give you a more general explanation and justification for this proposal. Thank you.

Clerks? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. So we'll try to keep our comments pretty short. This proposal is to eliminate the requirement in the charter that we publish notices of public hearings in the newspaper. It eliminates basically the publication in the newspaper of any type of notice, including the digest, which is also referenced in your proposed resolution 2694. So that might eliminate one if you decide to approve ours. It also replaces the term public hearing with public meeting so that that would clarify that these meetings are Sunshine Law meetings and of course we conduct those meetings in compliance with state law. So those are the two functions of this proposal. Eliminate publication and clarify that public hearings are public meetings and not Sunshine Law.

Thank you, Clicks. Deputy Corporation Counsel Colby, did you have anything to add as well, please?

Thank you, Chair. I do have a couple of concerns about the way that this resolution is worded, but also I guess I'll address the two issues as they were brought up. One has to do with notice, and Ms. Thompson clarified that IT'S ANY NOTICE, AND MY VIEW AND OUR OFFICE'S VIEW IS THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE NOTICING PUBLIC MEETINGS, WHICH HAS ITS OWN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN HRS 927. BUT THEN THERE ARE PUBLICATION OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE UNDER DIFFERENT HRS PROVISIONS 1-28.5 AND 46-2. 128.5 has the, actually all three of these statutes use the word notwithstanding, but that means in spite of any other provisions to the contrary. 128.5, as I understand it, because the legislature did not pass amendments to change it or revoke it, remains the law for any publication when a government agency is quote, required to give public notice or to public notice, the notice shall be given only as follows, and then it discusses that for statewide publication, daily and weekly publication, or daily, well, publication in a daily or weekly publication, and for countywide publication, by publication in a daily or weekly publication in the affected county. So while it appears to me that The notice requirements for say a council meeting which is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Sunshine Law could be met by doing what's proposed in this charter amendment. That section really applies on a limited capacity just to meeting notices that are under that part. Applicable language is 92-7, Section A, the very last sentence, which says, quote, the means specified by this section shall be the only means required for giving notice under this part, notwithstanding any law to the contrary. So if it's to satisfy Sunshine Law, then absolutely these provisions and the methods required The method basically doing it online as opposed to in a paper would be appropriate. But the word part, when it's used in a statute, is a term of art. Part refers to sections of a chapter. So the part of 92 in question is the section titled meetings. So respectfully, I would say that 92.7 is not in conflict in 128 as long as it's about public meeting notice as opposed to notice of publication. Likewise, HRS 46-2 discusses the obligations of the government for publication or advising ordinances, amendments, resolutions, and bills. And there it says, again, notwithstanding other provisions, of law to the contrary, whenever any law requires the publication or advertisement of ordinances, amendments, resolutions, or bills, the publication or advertisement shall be in a newspaper of general circulation within the county concerned and need not be in a daily newspaper. So my concerns are that anytime that we have an obligation to publish something, we would need to be in compliance with both HRS 1-28.5 and HRS 46-2. And just as kind of like a final comment on that, I think that the intent is for the public to have access to the same information in writing as the members that are considering an ordinance or what have you. So that's my concern regarding the notice portion. In terms of replacing THE PHRASE HEARING WITH MEETING, I CAN'T POINT YOU TO ANYTHING EXACTLY ON POINT THAT SAYS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT THE LAW DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MEETING AND A HEARING. BUT LOOKING AT OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SEEING GENERALLY WHAT'S GOING ON, HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED WHEN THE LAW REQUIRES INPUT FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS PART OF A PROCESS. AND IT'S TO SATISFY NOT AN OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENT but to satisfy a due process requirement that everybody has a say on certain types of things. And it can be specifically in the administrative rules or otherwise. So I think we should be careful in terms of when we're going to go ahead and change THE PHRASE PUBLIC HEARING TO PUBLIC MEETING, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE CERTAIN TIMES, BUT IN ANY EVENT, IT WOULD STILL NEED TO COMPLY, WELL, THE NOTICES WOULD STILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THOSE VARIOUS CHARTER OR STATUTE PROVISIONS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

Okay, thank you very much. That was a lot of numbers and words. I think I got some of it. But for right now, we're going to go into discussion. Remember, Paulton?

Can we go back to the clerk? Sure. I'm sorry, Chair.

Yes.

Testimony.

Before we get into discussion, sorry, my bad. If we could please have, hear from any testifiers. Is it possible to testify on this item?

Possible to get the clerk's response to that before testimony or no, we gotta wait?

I think we need to wait. Okay. We'll just do, they're gonna think about their response and then we'll double check on testimony and then we can go to them before we go to discussion then. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair, we currently have no one signed up to testify on this item, so staff will do a last call. If anyone would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or raise your hand on Microsoft Teams. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you. Without objection, I will now close oral testimony on this item, and written testimony will still be accepted. Thank you very much. If we could please hear your response, Deputy Clerk.

Sure, thank you. So just to address HRS 128.5, our understanding is that the OIP, Office of Information Practices, has given an opinion that Sunshine Law meetings do not require notice to be published in a newspaper. And so our intent is to mirror that so that currently they're referred to as public hearings in the charter, but that those types of council meetings do not require publication in the paper, that they require simply sunshine law notice that we're all familiar with. A distinction that I believe is important in HRS 46.2, and I'm sure that Deputy Colby has an opinion on this, is there's a phrase in there that says whenever any law requires the publication or advertisement of notices, it needs to be in a paper, basically. So if the law changes to not require the publication of notices, then I think that we probably would be okay. But I defer to the lawyers on that. But the goal, I think, is to acknowledge that publication in a newspaper is outdated. It's not environmentally friendly. You know, we're printing papers, and we spend literally, I mean, economically, thousands and thousands of dollars on publication. We don't know how long the Maui News is going to be around and we can't actually get the Star Advertiser to return our calls. And it also definitely inhibits our ability to schedule meetings. So there are a lot of kind of practical reasons that we wanted to propose eliminating the publication and newspaper requirement. And of course, we're open to any kind of language fixes that would address any of Deputy Colby's concerns.

Thank you, Member Palten.

I have a question, it's probably for a lawyer. If state law requires us to post stuff a certain way in a publication or a newspaper, if we just take it out of the charter, then wouldn't the default be the state law and how it's done?

Attorneys?

So your question is if we remove the requirement that we have to publish a certain way, then it would default to the state law? I think we always have to adhere to state law, and that's the only way I can say it. One doesn't replace the other.

So if we just exit out from the charter, we have to adhere to the state law anyway, so.

Yes, I think we're still required to follow the requirements for notice under state law.

I hear somebody's voice.

So would it be, I mean, obviously that's not what this does, but could we amend it to say we're just gonna follow state law?

Well, some of the provision expressly state that it requires public,

Notification.

Notification here, I'm just looking for.

In accordance with state law.

Yeah, so an example, Member Paulton, would be perhaps section 13-2, which is one of the sections that was going to be amended. And the last portion of this basically removed notice to the public by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and replaced it by saying notice must provide notice in compliance with state law which arguably we would be right back where we are which was does 1-28.5 apply does 46-2 apply if it does then it would be in compliance with state law my only concern about that is that and that's not incorrect, I think that provision is valid. If we are gonna go out of our way to try and explain to the public how they're gonna get notice, then if we just say we will deliberate and make a determination based upon our obligations under the charter. That doesn't really give the public the information that you might want, so it's a correct statement that we have to be in compliance with state law But there is the risk the public doesn't understand.

Thank you. Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. I know Corporation Council in their opening remarks mentioned that maybe there's a chance we could do this through administrative rules. And I'd like to hear you guys explain that. Like, do we have to write the code that says this will be done through each of the administrative rules? Can you clarify your statement?

Mr. Colby.

I don't recall exactly what I said about that. Could you refresh my recollection? I think I remember what I just said, but I don't think I said we could address it through administrative rules, but maybe I did.

Okay, well, that's just what I was thinking that we could do. So can we do that? And I got that idea from you saying that, but that's okay if you don't remember saying that. I kind of scratched my brain enough to think, wow, that might be a way out of this where administratively they do this and they say this in their administrative law rules that they need to advertise and da-da-da-da-da. If you don't agree with that way going forward, then that's fine, but I just, can we do it?

Chair, is it okay if I respond?

Yes, please. Sorry. Thank you. I was just doing a head count to make sure we had quorum right now.

Okay.

Um, yeah, remember Johnson basically, um, administrative rules are supposed to implement things that are, um, that are, uh, made law by statute or by ordinance. And so, um, administrative rules kind of flush out the details for something and wouldn't be superseding any obligations we have under county law ordinances or state statutes.

So in 24.5 and I think you said 46.2, the state HRS says we have to do this. And then, okay, I see what you're saying. All right, okay, I got it now. That was just my only question for now. So thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead, Member Palten.

So if you lawyers heard what you lawyers said and you lawyers heard what you lawyers said, is there a recommendation on how to move forward? Like should we take this resolution and propose it to the H-SAC legislative practice package? Or if you guys listen to each other, is there a recommendation based on you guys listening to each other?

Who wants to start? Clerks?

Actually, Member Paulton, I think that your earlier statement was a really good fix in terms of referencing any publication requirements and notice requirements in compliance with state law. I think all of us are pretty clear on what the state law refers to. So I'd be very comfortable with that. And most of our amendments do reference in compliance with state law when we're referring to meetings, so.

So just to clarify, your recommendation is to listen to my recommendation?

Yes, it is. Okay, timestamp that, somebody. Do we want to defer this item until the 16th, and do you guys want to do an ASF and you can do proposed language changes?

Yes, and we're happy to work with Corp Counsel and OCS attorneys on any fixes that they recommend. Okay.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you. For Ms. Tompkins... Thompson.

Thompson.

You mentioned about 2695, how this would affect 2695. Can you elaborate on that?

Yes. Oh, 2694, I believe, the publication of the digest in a newspaper. So as I understand, that proposal is to just allow us to, rather than publish the digest after first reading of the bills, that we would just publicly post them, which would be electronically posted on the council's website. Okay.

and not through the newspaper. Okay, got it, thank you.

Member Alex Fernandez. Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo for that last. Okay, so I think overall, there's way too much detail in our charter that makes things very inflexible as, the years pass and technology changes and advances. I can understand why some things were repeated because they didn't have the Internet way back when. So I get it. But here we are now and it is a challenge to amend the charter as it should be. but it's still a challenge. So my understanding with where we landed is instead of must be publicly posted, it'll just be in compliance with state law. Okay, great. And then my second question is regarding the difference between a meeting and a hearing. So in practice, when we have a hearing, we do not deliberate. We just have testimony. And that's how I've distinguished hearings and meetings and if now there will be no hearings and all meetings, does that mean there will be no gathering to just receive testimony and that there will be deliberations? Is there a requirement for deliberation? I don't know why that is the practice exactly but that's just been the practice so I don't, Are we gonna continue that practice or are we not? With the change of hearings to meetings.

So Director Rotz may have more historical knowledge on this than I do, but I believe that some of the references to public hearings predate the Sunshine Law. So prior to public meetings being required to have a public participation element, public hearings was, I believe, the Maui Charter's instruction to involve the public in your decision making. So I think that's at least part of the answer. I don't know if there's other explanations for the differences in the terms.

Okay, and then I don't know if anyone else has the other part of that answer to my question. No, somebody?

Okay.

What was the other part, I'm sorry?

So if we change the word, okay, so we've distinguished hearings and meetings. Hearings, we just receive testimony. Meetings, we deliberate and take testimony. So if we're no longer gonna have hearings, is there still going to be two types of meetings where we only take testimony?

No, I think if the wording is changed to just public meetings, then you basically would have to follow Sunshine Law, which means public testimony, discussion, deliberation. But if it's just a public hearing, then you don't have the discussion and deliberation. But we're changing it, right, from public hearing to public meeting, which will require, under the Sunshine Law, public testimony. So it's almost like, you know, a public.

Well, not the testimony part, the deliberation part.

Not necessarily, because like a 7 , you know, you have discussion, but you don't have. any voting or anything like that?

Yeah, discussion, the deliberation part.

So you're asking if you can just have public testimony instead of?

Yeah, yeah, so hearings, we just receive testimony, and once testimony pile, we adjourn, right? And then in meetings, we take testimony, and then we close testimony, and then we deliberate, and then we adjourn. So I don't know if there's a requirement for deliberation. I don't remember that necessarily being a requirement in Sunshine Law. But that's just been the practice of hearings we don't deliberate. I don't know if we could. We just never really did.

Right. Yeah, I don't think there's a requirement. It'll be similar to a 7B, but it would be kind of weird, I guess, if you have public testimony and not any discussion. But I guess that would be similar to a public hearing.

I know, considering we're going to. I mean, you're just changing the name. Yeah, we're gonna defer. So perhaps we can wait for her. We can find out that information and discuss that on the 16th for sure. And then we can get the new language so that we can be in compliance with state law. And then they can, they can answer your question meeting V hearing.

Yeah. And if, and I mean, if it's a change in practice and we will never no longer just take testimony and we'll always deliberate, like, I mean, that's what we're going to be doing. I just would like to know if that's what we're going to be doing.

Right. And as we sometimes have hearings, it's during a meeting. So then we open the hearing and then the meeting, and then we close the hearing and continue with the meeting. So it's like, We usually do things concurrently.

Well, actually, only usually from 2019. I think we do. Because Mike White did that, too.

I wonder how it affects the planning commission, too, because they have hearings.

Yeah.

They have hearings without deliberation? No, but they also have hearings, I think. Yeah.

Those would be adjudicatory hearings. So not sunshine law meetings, but adjudicatory where they're doing a contested case. So that's mostly in the boarding commission realm. Got it.

Okay. Yeah. So like maybe when we take this up again, when we recess reconvene the recess meeting, we can have a better understanding of the implications. Sounds good. I will.

I just thought of something. So I actually, we're doing that already because when we have budget and when you guys go to the the resident areas, there's just testimony, there's no discussion or deliberation. And that's a public meeting, yeah.

Okay, nice example. Yes, thank you. Without it, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. Before you defer, this is a real quick question for the clerks. Did this go through Corp Council before it came to us? Did you guys send it to court of counsel? Did you guys discuss this?

No, and we apologize for that. Intended to send the whole package down and I did not do it.

Okay.

We're having live discussions. Thank you. Without objection, I will now defer this item. No objection. No objection. Thank you. Moving on. We have before us resolution 25-126 entitled Proposing Amendments to the Charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended related to standardizing deadlines regarding voter initiative, recall, and charter amendment. Resolution 25-126's purpose is to place on the general election ballot the question whether the revised charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended effective January 1, 2027 to standardize the deadlines related to the Office of the County Clerk's processing of petitions on voter initiative, recall of elected officers or board and commission members, and charter amendments. And at this time, Chair Lee, if you have any discussion, please go ahead and then we'll follow up with the county clerk and Deputy Corporation Counsel Colby.

Again, Chair, I'm offering this proposal on behalf of the county clerk's office.

Thank you.

Clerks. Thank you. So this proposal in Reso 25216 is to standardize the deadlines for the clerk's office's processing of voter initiative. And that's under Article 11 recall, under Article 12 and Article 14 charter amendments. Those all require the clerk's office to review petitions in three different time frames. And what a review of that involves is looking at all of those signatures and the voter records individually to determine whether they're of active voters who are properly registered, that the addresses match. So it's a very time-consuming and laborious process. In 2016, Article 11 was updated. So that was 10 years ago. The population has dramatically changed. Article 12 had the same requirements since at least 1977. Article 14, same thing. It was amended last in 1892. So our request is to match Article 11's criteria, which is a 45-day initial time period to review the petition's submission. And then it's currently 20 days to review the supplementary submission. supplementary signatures and petition, and we would like to increase that to 30. So 45 initial, 30 supplementary is what we're proposing for all three types of petitions.

Thank you. Corporation Council, do you have any comments?

Just briefly, I don't see any problems with the with making those changes. So from a legal point of view, there's no problem. I would perhaps, if you wanna move forward with this, I might have some suggested language that might clarify what the language on the election ballot would be.

Okay, thank you. And before we move on to discussion, let's receive testimony for this item, grade 10, parent four. Staff, any testifiers?

Chair, we currently don't have anyone signed up for oral testimony on this item. Staff will do a last call. If anyone would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or raise your hand on Microsoft Teams. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated they wish to testify.

Thank you very much. Members, seeing there are no individuals wishing to testify, without objection, I will now close oral testimony for this item. Thank you very much. Written testimony will continue to be accepted, and we're going to do another three-minute questioning period with a one-minute follow-up round. So, members, any questions? Go ahead, members to Nancy.

I did receive something in the mail about my signature. Is that part of this?

No, but thank you so much for offering us the opportunity to give our voter signature cards a plug. They are yellow cards that all registered voters receive in the mail to their address that we currently have on file. What we're asking them to do is provide their current signature in the box. fold it over, seal it with tape and mail it back, gets postage paid. And what that allows us to do is make sure that the signatures on file exactly match so that when they get their ballots and they sign the back of their ballots, that there's no issue with a signature not matching. And that can change over time due to disability or just age or just my signature changed from how I read it when I was 18, a very long time ago. So thank you, that's what you're receiving in the mail.

And it's going to all registered voters?

Yes, all registered voters. And if you have not received a yellow card in the mail, please call our office and we will help you get your registration up to date.

Okay, thank you.

270-7749.

Good luck. Member Rollins-Fordandes.

What was that number again? That's 808-270-7749 or MauiCountyVotes.gov. Yay, beautiful. And that signature is required for their votes to count? Correct, yes. So on the back of your ballot envelope that you return your ballot in, you'll sign the back of that envelope and that's how it gets processed seamlessly and it avoids any slowdown in counting your ballot.

Okay, so the question for this one, I'm supportive of increased time. I know that it can be a lot of work. My question about the signatures, can they be collected electronically and would that be helpful in verifying the signatures?

So currently the requirements are wet ink signatures and that allows us to compare them with the voter records which are also typically wet ink. So we don't have the ability to be able to collect them electronically at this point.

Okay, mahalo for that clarification. The wet ink requirement is not in the charter.

No, it's simply that we're, yeah, sometimes electronic signatures can get very choppy looking and really not match your actual signature. But I don't believe that if our capability is changed, and we would be able to do electronic signatures. That wouldn't require another charter amendment, no. All right, mahalo for that.

Mahalo, sir. Anybody else have questions?

So I just wanted to clarify, whatever the timeframe was, the first timeframe is gonna be 45 days. And whatever the next portion was, the next timeframe is gonna be 30 days. And that's the standardization. So it's gonna be about roughly two and a half months to verify any voter initiative.

Yes, it'd be voter initiative. So those are voters proposing changes to the Maui County Code or recall. So recalling an elected or appointed official or the charter amendment.

So it's going from basically a month and a half to two and a half months.

Yeah, so initiatives right now are 45 initial, 20 supplementary. So just be adding another 10 days for the supplementary filing. And the supplementary filing is if they don't have sufficient signatures on the first go around, they get another shot. Recall, right now it's 30 days initial, 10 supplementary. And those are the days that the county clerk's office has to process all those signatures.

Is it specified whether it's calendar days or working days?

Those are calendar days.

Both, all of it is currently calendar days. Oh, okay. And the only offset to doing this is maybe you wait like a week or two or so longer or a month longer? two weeks to a month longer.

Right, so there's really not a great deal of change on the Article 11 initiative, the proposed ordinances by voters, so it's only adding 10 more days on our processing of the supplementary petition.

And then what you had said was because the voter registration has expanded so much, You guys' pay hasn't expanded in the same way. And so you have to do so much work in a set time frame. So in theory, as the population continues to grow, you may need more time in the future. There's no formula that you could come up with to say that we only have to do this charter amendment one time. Like percentage of once the voter registration reaches this much, it'll be so many days, no formula.

Not necessarily. I gave that some thought too when we were proposing this. California, they do a sampling of signatures. So I believe it's maybe, I'm taking this out of my head, 5% of the petition signatures are sampled and they conclude that based on that sampling that there's sufficient valid signatures rather than going through every single one of them. I don't think we're there yet. In terms of our population, our voting population is not that great. I can tell you some numbers. So for initiatives, those proposed ordinances, it's based on 20% of the total number of voters who cast ballots in the last mayoral election. So in 2022, that was a little over 52,000. voters casting ballots in that election. So that was 10,509 signatures that had to qualify the petition to go forward.

So 45 days to hand check 10,000. Is there only one person in your office that can do this? Or is it like a group effort?

Yeah, when we get these in, it's all hands on deck because it's such a compressed time frame.

Do sometimes you work on weekends and do overtime? Oh, yes.

Okay, supportive. Any other questions? We all know how long and how difficult it is sometimes to get 15 signatures. Any other questions?

Chair, what was the language, potential language for the ballot question? It's on this, right? Oh, on the, okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, I read it earlier, but it's, you have a, for easy reference, in the beginning, staff put out this cliff note, if we will, summary of all of the things, and it just says standardize the times. and we heard the new proposed standardization. So 45 days for the first time period and 30 days for the second time period for reviewing and certifying initiative recall and charter amendment petitions for their review, yes? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. I think Member Sinansi's question is what is the ballot question, and that's not on our cliff notes.

Oh, that's not on our cliff notes?

It's on the resolution that's posted to Granikist. shall the charter be amended effective January 1st, 2027 to standardize the deadlines related to the clerk's processing of petitions related to voter initiative, recall of elected officers or board or commission members and charter amendments.

Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Seeing none, I would like to entertain a motion to pass this on first reading for Resolution 25-12216, including any non-substantive revisions.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion by Member Palten, second by Member Sinensi. Any discussion? Seeing none, did you want to discuss, Member Palten?

Most of the clerks are unit three members who have historically been shafted on their collective bargaining and I don't wanna stress them out. I don't mind paying them overtime to do the work that they need to do but too bad we can't get a formula going so we don't have to continue to amend the charter but maybe our population won't grow that much but I hope our voters do.

That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Member Sinensi.

Thank you, Chair. I would recommend maybe the days on the ballot question from 30 to 45 so people could kind of get a sense of what's being changed. That would be my suggestion.

If that does happen, I think we should also include... what is involved in what they have to do in that amount of days. It's not that we're just increasing the days, it's that the population of voter registered is increasing and it needs to be checked and that's why more days rather than standardizing it down to less days is occurring. if I were to read it and say, oh, they just wanna take longer without understanding why they wanna take longer because they're hand checking a larger amount than 1983, maybe we can say whenever this was originally in the charter, 20% of the last mayoral election was 2,000. So certifying 2,000 signatures in 20 days or 30 days, no big deal. But now they have to certify 10,000 signatures in a certain amount of time. giving them all the information they need to understand why we're standardizing it up instead of standardizing it down.

Member Rollins-Fernandez, did you have something you wanted to add? Thank you, Member Palten. Yeah, so it's not just one.

it's not just from 30 to 45, it's supplementary petitions 20 to 30, filing and certification is from 20 to 45, supplemental petitions is from 10 to 30, and initiation of amendments is from 15 to 45. So I wouldn't be opposed to changing the ballot question to add that, so where it says voter initiative from 15 to 30, recall from 15, I don't know, I don't remember what I just read, but adding those numbers so that there's a reference, and then we also have, this handy dandy cheat sheet that will be available on MauiCountyVotes.gov and will be published in the newspaper of not daily circulation. Yes. and on socialism, et cetera. Yeah, so if, oh, okay, so I guess we, I don't know if we're gonna be voting on it right now then.

I was gonna vote on it. Personally, I understand you guys' points, but then it does get a little wordy. So I was gonna ask, are we planning on doing, not just for this one, but for all the proposed charter amendments, obviously not sent out with the ballots, but just like an infographic on the proposed amendments, Because it's a lot of information when our voters have to vote, when I have to vote, even though we discuss it here and I have to explain it to somebody else. It's difficult. Are we going to do that? And perhaps that might be the best time to put some of the detail in. And we can also describe what Member Paulton is trying to suggest to really explain why you folks need the time to accurately review potentially 10,000 signatures.

Yes, and that's also another great plug for the Digital Voter Guide, which Corp Council is so excited because they have the duty of preparing a clear and concise explanation of each charter amendment. and they also have to translate it into Ololo Hawaii and any other language required under the Federal Voting Rights Act. So we're happy to work with court counsel in providing, helping them to summarize and provide those points. And I think also counsel itself can produce informational material

Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Are the cliff notes allowed at the voter service centers?

The voter guide is, and we have paper copies of it. Mahalo.

That's a good question.

Yeah.

Okay, can we request then for Corp Council, when you guys do create this document, could you please add what is currently allowed and what is being proposed, the changes?

Yes.

Thank you. and maybe a brief description as well as Member Paltin suggested of their duties in those 45 days and 30 days to keep it consistent.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much. Is that sufficient? Okay, so I do have a motion by Member Paltin and a second by Member Sinensi. Do we need any other further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, that is six ayes, three excused. Councilmember Cook, Sugimura, and Patongan, motion passes.

Thank you. Members, if you don't mind, let's do one more, and then if need be, we can take a quick recess. So we have before us resolution 25-217 entitled proposing an amendment to the charter of the county of Maui 1983 as amended relating to the computation of time. Resolution 25-127's purpose is to place on the next general election ballot question of whether the revised charter of the county of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended effective January 1, 2027 to specify that the time in which an action must be done is computed by excluding the first and including the last, unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday, and then it is also to be excluded. Chair Lee, did you want to have any comments? Or if not, I'm happy to pass the mic to County Clerk.

Yeah, could you do that? Yes. Pass it to County Clerk. Thank you.

I will, thank you. Clerks?

Thank you. So we hope this is a very straightforward amendment. The purpose is currently the County Code has a formula for calculating time. It excludes Sundays and holidays, but it would include Saturdays. The reason that we would like to go ahead and have the charter exclude the weekends and holidays is so that the deadlines in the charter are clear. Some of the deadlines in the charter you count up to 30 days, some days you count backwards. For example, with charter amendments, we count backwards from the date of the general election, 75 days a clerk has to submit the charter amendments to the Office of Elections. But then when you get into recall or like the initiative petitions and all of that, you're both counting forward from some dates, backwards from some. And if they end up on a weekend, currently what we've been doing is working with Corp Council. We put out a memo every election cycle. that laboriously goes through these dates and Caleb Rowe and I have worked on it for years together. Then we actually send it to like the initiative committee and so that everybody is clear on the dates. We try to not have our employees working on Saturdays and typically they will be amenable to that. But it's been my concern that that would not necessarily pass legal challenge if we were to get into a disagreement on that. So having the deadlines clearly fall within the work week for us would be preferable.

Thank you. Corporation Council, you have anything you want to add before we move on to discussion and testimony?

No, just briefly, the HRS has Chapter 1-29, Computation of Time, which pretty much does what this resolution's intended to do. It does carve out that when so provided by the rules of court, the last day shall also exclude a Saturday, but there's no legal reason why you can't adopt this.

Thank you. Before we go on to discussion, any testifiers wishing to testify on this item? Grade 10-5.

Chair, we currently have no individuals signed up to testify on this item. Staff will do a last call. If anyone would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or raise your hand on teams. The count is three, two, one. Seeing no one, Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you. Members, without objection, I will now close oral testimony. Thank you, and as a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Again, we will be doing a three minute questioning period with a one minute follow up round if necessary. Members, any questions? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo Chair, I wanted to follow up on the counting backwards from 75 days from the election, I think it was 75, for charter amendments. So if the 75 days falls on a Sunday, it would be due the Friday

Right now? Right. So the 75 days for that wouldn't change because that's in state law. So that's just our deadline, deadline. But we try never to push it up to the actual deadline. So we would get it to a wee ahead of that. So we would transmit on a workday absent some very unusual circumstance. So the 75 days on that circumstance, we're not worried about. But really what I'm kind of talking about is, The voter initiative is kind of a perfect, perfect example here of so many things. So they have within 180 days of filing with a county clerk, they have to get their petition together. So within 45 days, we have to determine the sufficiency thereof. So in that case, if we did change to incorporate this excluding Saturday, Sunday, or the holiday, if you count, you exclude the first day, so say you filed it on May 1st, and you count 45 days from May 1st, and just for example, that ended up on a Saturday, you would exclude Saturday, Sunday, and so the deadline would be Monday. So they would actually get a bit longer than 45 days.

Okay, and then this section, would supersede the 45 days rule.

Right. So it would basically tell you how to count those days. And certain agencies like OIP restricts their deadlines to business days, which just to me is more difficult to count.

Okay, so we're still counting calendar days, not business days. Right. Except for if the deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. And then in that case, we would recognize the business day.

Right, then it would bump to the next business day, which would be Monday morning, yeah.

Right, unless Monday is a holiday. Right. Then it would be Tuesday. Tuesday, exactly. Okay, oh, my next question, second question. In my second round.

Does anybody else have any other questions? Okay, I will go to Member Palten and come back to you.

Okay, as if we can combine them. Okay, just think about that. Okay, combining, thank you.

Member Palten.

Are we sure that this couldn't be done by administrative rules? Do we need it in the charter how we're gonna count these?

It's in code. But we can answer that.

I think, yes.

All the attorneys, yes, go ahead.

Yeah, there is a kind of quote section on computation of time. so it could be accomplished there. Yeah, I don't think you necessarily have to do a charter amendment. And I just wanna also add that under the reso, I think the language, if we're gonna go forward with this resolution, the language in be it resolved paragraph one has to be amended to reflect that this is actually a new section that's gonna be added.

Yeah, I guess my preference would be not to add a new section, not to specify how we count days in the charter, but to do it in the code. I mean, it feels very ethereal, like it's going to last forever, that we're not going to count days. It ends on a not working day, but we're going calendar days. But still, like... As a voter, I don't care how you guys count days, really. As long as it's consistent across the board. When I'm voting who's gonna be the next leader of the free world or the county of Maui, and then I look at the thing about how to count days, I'm like, why are you wasting my time with how you wanna count these? Just pick a way to count these and count them. That's my feeling as a regular, everyday kind of person. Count these how you count them as long as you consistently count these the same way for everybody.

I will say we did have this problem my first term and it was a messy discussion, remember? Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. Yeah, I know we have PTSD from that. But if we can do this via code and not charter amendment, I'm happy to work with you guys and do it via code if that works with you folks.

My concern about, so the county code already does have a section on computation of time and it excludes Sunday and holidays. My concern about that is that to me there's still a legal question on whether that applies to the charter. It definitely applies to everything in the county code but does it apply to the charter which is basically a step above the code?

So I would change the code to say Saturday, Sundays, and holidays, and this shall apply to the county charter. Could that? Can you say that? Can I say that?

Can we say that? Defer to the attorneys on that. Okay.

aren't you guys all the time?

I mean, unless there is a conflicting provision in the charter, I think the charter also allows for the council to fill in the blanks, so to speak, if there's any ambiguity in the charter. So I think if we are men, it's actually a section 1.0 4.0 2 0 sub E. Uh, yeah. And um, deputy Connie, uh, clerk is correct that it does reference, It says the time within which an act to be done as provided in any provision in this code or any order issued pursuant to any provision in this code when it's expressed in day shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last unless the last day is a Sunday or holiday, which in which case it also it is also excluded.

So I would take that section of the code and say code and charter and excluding unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or holiday and I would feel like we could call it a day and we solve this problem. And we don't have to involve the public in how to count.

I don't have a problem with that. I would defer to.

We're not aware of any conflicting day counting procedures. No, I'm not in the charter.

Okay.

That would be my recommendation.

Thank you. Ms. Thompson, did you want to have anything to add, Deputy Clerk?

Not necessarily. We'll work with Corp Council and OCS on that. An alternative could be to we could combine it with our first proposal, which is kind of a housekeeping one to the publication notice proposal. We could incorporate that in there.

Is that what you were talking about, Member Rollins-Fernandez, and where we could combine?

Yeah, I wanted to see how many of them we could combine. Yeah. You know, because I... I'm with Member Poulton, absolutely, but I also understand the hierarchy of laws and if the code usually does not tell the Charter what to do, unless the Charter tells the code that it can. And so I don't have the entirety of the Charter memorized, so I don't know if this is... If we could combine them so that it's just like one question and it's like wrapped up as like housekeeping to modernize and get our charter out of the 80s into the 2020s, then great. And it can just be one ballot question. I think that would be better.

And I'm not opposed to that, but I still would like to change the code to line up with the charter on the Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Support that too. Like that. And Charlie can introduce the bill on behalf of the clerks.

Mahalo, Charlie. Look at her face. Whatever pleases you, honor me. I have work to do right now. I'm getting work done, actually.

Oh, thank you for participating. Do you have any objection to combining these? or creating any language to combine? Yeah, the last one that we just did, because I think, to be fair, I would love to see it via code, and I'm happy to do that too, but if we were able to do it via code, I do think we probably wouldn't have gotten into all the issue we did the last time. And I wish counting days was simple, because I remember it was a big to-do. We had to get lawyers involved on how to count to 45. It was wild. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. So for the budget, where we have to have the budget adopted and everything all cleared by June 30th, would this affect the counting of those days?

Good question. I'll defer to Pete on that. But, um, no, I think it's, I don't believe so. I think that when you have a specified deadline, like June 30th, but it's more about how do you count the days, like 30 days deadline kind of thing, 45 day deadline.

Okay.

So when Mr. Hanano, Mr. Hanano, do you want to answer that?

It seems like from this past budget session, the, Consensus, well, maybe not consensus, but the way it was handled was to go the Friday before. I think one of the days, I think it was the RPT certification fell out on Sunday, and so I was told that, okay, then that means you got to do it on Friday. Whether or not that's... I mean, if you go early, it's not gonna be a problem. If you go on Monday, it could be a problem if the interpretation is it should have been on Friday. I did find under section four three of the charter submission of bills to the mayor, there is a section that says if the mayor disapproves it, the mayor shall specify the mayor's objections to the bill in writing and return it to the county clerk with the mayor's objections. Within 10 days, and in parentheses excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays after receiving it. So there is an intent to kinda do what we're proposing here is to exclude legal holiday as a day that you count. And that's the only place I could find it. But I will say too, if you're gonna amend the charter, you probably gotta amend the code anyway because it'll be inconsistent, so there's that.

Do you know if that section four that you just read applies to the budget? To bills, but not necessarily to the budget ordinance.

I don't think there's anything similar in the budget.

Section 4-3.3?

Yeah, I don't think so. I think that's the only place that references... interpretation like that.

Okay, and then you know like if we're gonna combine these and come back with an ASF with just housekeeping into one. Maybe we can get that question clarified before we take action.

How about actually let's take a few minute recess right now and then we can figure out how we can do that. And then when we come back, I can have an answer for you folks before we entertain a motion on this. So if that's all right with you folks. Do we want to do a five-minute recess? Because I'm supposed to get through seven. I think we're on three. So let's do a fiver to come back at 3.20. This meeting is now in recess. Welcome back, it is 3.32 p.m. and we just returned from our recess where we were discussing how to proceed. So my suggestion for you all members is to defer this and create a combination between this one and the first item we discussed as reso 25215, which we're going to see on the 16th again, that's gonna stay in compliance with state law. And so we're gonna have this 25215 I'm sorry, 217, computation of time. We're gonna have it combined as to not again overwhelm our electorate. And if that's okay with you folks, then I will defer this item and we will have it. Thank you. We'll have the discussion again on the 16th. So this item is going to be deferred and we are going to move on friends and family. It's three 33. So we have before us resolution 26, entitled proposing an amendment to the Charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended related to the processing of claims. Resolution 26-61's purpose is to place on the next general election ballot the question of whether the revised Charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended effective January 1, 2027 to streamline the process for filing claims for personal injury or personal damage by requiring that claims are filed directly with Corporation Council. And at this time, Chair Lee, if you don't mind, we're just gonna skip you unless you had something you burning, you wanted to say, and I was just gonna go straight to the County Clerk and Corporation Council.

Okay, no problem. Okay, thank you.

She's busy.

Thanks. Thank you, Chair. We've presented this resolution because we, as you know, accept the claims from the members of the public for property damage or personal injury claims. And what's been happening is that we've noticed that it's really causing a lot of confusion for the public, but it's also really heavily taxing my staff, and that includes me. People don't understand when they come into our office that our sole purpose here is to accept their claim and then distribute it. And so we get it. We distribute it to risk, Corp Council, the mayor, the chair, and then to the third party adjuster. And most recently, we had a claimant, and these are all publicly filed so I can talk about this, named Mark Weidel, whose vehicle was damaged at one of our beach parks. A tree fell on his car while he was in it. And he filed the claim with us. And I have spent, I would guesstimate, around 40 hours minimum with him just trying to explain the process to him, explain to him where it goes. He was coming in every week. He came in also after the claim was denied because he was frustrated and angry. And what I've realized is that really we're pretty much the only forward-facing, public-facing people that claimants actually see if they come in. And it's just really not something I think that our office should be handling because what's happening is I tell him he needs to go to risk management, you need to go to court counsel. honestly I don't know where risk is other than the Trask building but when they don't get calls back or if they don't feel like their questions are being addressed and I'm not in any way blaming anyone for this they just because it's not fast enough they just keep coming back to my office and that's why I've spent so much time with Mr. Weidel and it's just, I think, an unnecessary process. I think it's a bit archaic, and I think the best thing to do for our public to keep them in the loop on how things actually work and what the process actually is is to send them to the department that handles it, and that's risk management through Corp Council.

Thank you, clerks. Corp Council, and then we'll take testimony.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Well, on the outset, 46-72 does permit the charter to identify who accepts claims on behalf of the county as it relates to damages or personal injuries. And it basically can be any person. It doesn't have to be the county clerk, but it also doesn't have to be the corporation counsel. It could be anyone, frankly, I mean, within reason. So the statute does allow you guys to go ahead and to make that change to the charter provision to identify corporation counsel. I have some concerns and I have also brought as a resource person Heather Andradington from risk management who can provide you with some of her concerns related to the risk manager or the corporation counsel being the identified recipient of the notices. But I will point out one legal issue that's likely to arise out of this, and that is that our office as attorneys ultimately are responsible for the litigation that comes out of claims that are filed against the county if they can't be resolved. What that means is that if attorneys are accepting the service on this, oftentimes it is from a person who's a pro se litigant who's submitting this basic form. And they say a lot of things. And so what that's gonna do is it's gonna make us into witnesses who might later have to testify or be involved with the litigation. And I know that this council is sensitive about having to to approve outside counsel for cases where we have an internal conflict because we are witnesses in litigation that we can no longer handle. As an attorney, I'll tell you we have rules of professional conduct that we have to follow, including that attorneys generally aren't supposed to be witnesses in litigation. There are a few exceptions to that, but the idea is that we can't be conflicted and kind of examined by other attorneys in our office. I guess I think you maybe understand my point. With that concern, I think we don't want to create conflict if we don't have to. The conflict can be related to what exactly was filed, when it was filed, whether a claim was filed at all. There are occasions where people have said that they have filed things and then we haven't been able to confirm that or the county clerk hasn't been able to confirm that. The other thing that's gonna happen is there's gonna have to be some type of a repository or rules related to the retention of documents, which I think is a traditional role of the county clerk and not necessarily our office. But those are my opening remarks. And then I think at some point after you've had testimony, I'd like to have Ms. N. Draddington have a chance to address things from the risk perspective.

Thank you. We will take testimony and then we'll have a same MMS and Draddington.

Chair, we currently have no one signed up to testify on this item, so staff will do a last call. If anyone would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or raise your hand on teams. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you, members. Seeing there are no more individuals wishing to testify without objection, I will now close oral testimony on this item. Okay, as a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Member Johnson, I saw you had your hands up. Did you want to add to something?

I was just ready for questions when you're ready.

Oh, okay. Thank you. I don't want to butcher your name and I said it earlier and I was so confident myself. Yeah, we'll go with Heather, if you don't mind first names. Would you please? You're welcome to have a statement as well.

Hello, okay. Androddington, Heather Androddington, yes. I don't have a lot just as a overview of the claims process. When the claims come into the county clerk's office, they get transmitted to our third party administrator and risk is copied on that. We don't actually process claims in our office. That is our TPA's job. In the example that was provided, he was persistent in his pursuit of his claim. However, I personally spoke to him the day after he filed his claim and he had lots and lots of instruction and advice and the claims process, the overview explained. multiple times and that's just unfortunately that was unsatisfactory for him and that's that's not typical of of claimants normally we don't I would say he's an outlier as far as how claimants are generally received as far as. claims, receiving claims physically. Our location, we're separate from Corporation Council physically and our building doesn't have an elevator, it doesn't have, and we're on the second floor, it doesn't have any sort of waiting area or public reception area. Our door is locked, it's badge access only. We don't have, we're a very small office and we're already short staffed right now. We don't have anyone to do the workers' compensation claims as well as the liability, the auto and the property. So right now, I personally am handling all of those. The claims assistant position is also vacant right now. So we don't have a receptionist that's sort of our front office equivalent. But when you walk into our office, there's nowhere to, there's no seating for someone that doesn't have a desk. So basically, if anybody wanted to come to our office and file a claim, they would have to wait outside on the outside walkway where the railing is. And it's not really conducive to that sort of action. I think that's about, did I miss anything? I don't really, I mean I can't really speak to the legality of it all, that's more Tom's question, but just from a logistical standpoint it doesn't really, It's not feasible for us.

Thank you. Before we go into the discussion, I do see that the clerk has something to add as well, and then I'll go into the discussion. I have a lot to add, but I'll keep it short.

So for civil lawsuits who are required, the Corporation Council accepts service of complaints. For claims, there's no requirement like that. That's why my office has been accepting them. A lot of times they come in via email, they come in by mail, or they'll come in hand-walked. Wiedel was an outlier in the sense that he was far more persistent than some, but I'll tell you he's not abnormal. It's just nobody else sees it except people in my office, i.e. me, because I handled claims and court counsel for 20 years. And so during the fires, after the fires, we had a lot of claimants that came in and needed to be walked through the claims process. And because I'm there and I understood the gravity of the situation, I would take the time to explain it. But there was a number of other claims that I could list that are similarly situated. People just don't understand that our office receives it and then distributes it. Back when I was in Corp Council, expedited claims, which were under a certain dollar amount, were actually handled internally. But even if they weren't being handled internally because of the dollar amount, you're regularly consulted as the deputy assigned to it or risk management or both in order to seek resolution if you can. But You know, I understand that it's an inconvenience, but it is for us as well. And I just, I think for the public, if we're looking at public service and being transparent and helpful to our public, sending them to us is not the place to send them because it's just, it's incredibly time consuming. And when people are getting frustrated, there's really not much I can do, except I was calling risk management. I was calling Corp Council. I didn't call the TPA because I don't, I think that's my job. But to the extent that I'm able to help people, I will. It's just, it's so much time out of specifically my day and my staff's day. And I don't think it's fair to our public.

Thank you. Member Johnson, you had your hand up first. Did you want to begin questioning? And then I'll move over to Member Palten.

Okay, sure. That was an interesting line discussion. I learned some things there. So some of my questions are already answered. So thank you for that. For the Clerks Department, why didn't you guys meet with Corporation Council on this reso as it directly affects their department?

I don't have a good excuse for that. We have previously had this resolution I know up previously and I know that it wasn't well received cause I was in court counsel and also combating this at the time. But now in my current position I can see that it actually makes no sense to have it come to the office I'm currently in at all.

So, um, Okay, I'm going to go over corporation counsel because what you mentioned was important that if you do take these files, you could become a witness and therefore bring you into the court and that kind of messy situation. But you also said they can file a claim anywhere in any department? Would you even say that's the counsel departments as well? I mean, us guys as well? I mean, I don't want to get wrapped up in any either. So maybe clarify that.

Sure, I can clarify that. I didn't mean that anybody that a file can be or a claim can be filed with anybody. What it does say is that the charter can designate who will receive notice under that provision. So it's to designate a person. So if it says the fire chief or if it says the...

managing director or if it says something like that we've identified a specific person and then they have a default language that says or if you don't do it in the charter then it's the county clerk or the council chair so like take that person who had the the tree fall on them you're suggesting or it by law it's suggesting they they could go to parks and say i'm file i'm giving this to you guys

in order to satisfy the requirement of 4672, which basically says that you have to provide notice to the counties of claims, that needs to be satisfied by following that obligation to notify the person who's identified as the entity receiving the uh claim so it couldn't be just to parks if it's a park related case unless you guys decided to identify the director of parks as the uh receiver under 4672 i don't know if he'd be happy with that and we uh we'd have to do charter amendments for all that like it'd be subject-based that's kind of messy okay all right that's the end of my line the question thank you so much thank you

Chair Lee, thank you, Member Johnson. And Member Ponton. I have a question. Sorry. Member Ponton, do you mind if Chair Lee goes?

I guess since she's doing all that extra hard work. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. Tom Colby, Mr. Colby, how many deputies are in Corp Council?

Oh, can you put on your mic, please? Thank you.

I'm not certain of the exact number. I would estimate about 20.

About 20. And then we know there's two in the clerk's office. So I think just by the sheer numbers, it's pretty obvious that, and this is very time consuming and they have elections to worry about and other concerns. Don't you think that more, the logical place to go would be Corp Counsel's office. Because you're gonna get them eventually anyway.

Chair, I can't speak to whether or not that's the appropriate place. I'm trying to give you just kind of a neutral take on the legal issues, but I understand that this is gonna be an inconvenience to anybody who's assigned to it. It's my understanding that there's approximately 70 claims or so a year. And so it's not an enormous number, but it's nevertheless significant, particularly if you are forward, public facing. It doesn't have to be served on an attorney. Service of process has to be served on the Department of the Corporation Council, and that service would have to be on an attorney. But generally, I don't believe that an attorney has to accept service of a claim, because what it is is just a notice.

Okay, so what we could also, okay, which you have way more staff than OCC. So this could be resolved by simply increasing your staff, not yours personally, but the office's staff by two or three clerks. Agree to that?

I believe right now we have a very severe shortage of staff members. We are mostly fully staffed with attorneys. We don't have a lot of staff on either the litigation or on the counsel and drafting side that are legal secretaries or secretaries. And so we do have, as part of corporation counsel, we have the risk management department, but as you've heard from Ms. Andradington, they're shorthanded as well. So yeah, sure, but we, you know, as has been pointed out, it's not easy to recruit people into these positions here in the county.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Member Palten.

Thank you. Go, Member Palten, then Member Allens-Fernandez.

Okay, my question is, could we not make a portal an impression portal and an online portal to receive these. There's that little orange box outside where you can drop things in and somebody can check it every day. Or does it have to be a warm body receiving this? Could it be sent in the mail and we reimburse them the 50 cents or whatever for their mailage if they have a hardship for that or giveaway stamps? I mean, Obviously, this is very serious to you folks, but the general public, I don't know that they really care. And it seems like we could fix it by saying like, mail it to this location or upload it online to this portal. I mean, I think there's more than a few ways to skin different animals. More ways to skin a mangle.

There we go. I think clerk has something to add to that. Add to it.

Thank you. So for the vast majority of claims that we get are received in the way that you've explained. They're typically mailed in. Sometimes they're emailed. Once a number of the Lahaina victims were lawyered up, then we would get long lists of the claimants because it is required by law for them to file that first. And so that takes away a lot of the traffic. We have three employees in ledge division, as you all know. So we have a very short staff, but for the most part, the people that are coming in are under typically a lot of stress and are unsatisfied with getting an email back, they do call, but they want to see a human. So that's where a lot of my time was spent with Mr. Weidel and a few others that were involved in not just the Lahaina fires, but up country as well. These are the more recent ones. And so that's where the time comes in. And I don't think you need, they're not coming in necessarily with documents. They want to talk. Where's my claim? How come I haven't heard back from third party adjuster? How long does this process take? When am I going to find out? Why is the TPA telling me that a court council has it once they have it, what's the amount that they can pay me out at? It's that kind of stuff that people want to know. And I just, I, I mean, sure, I can explain it, but I don't know your next clerk, Ken. And I don't think that we should be.

I think one of the other things to keep in mind is this third party adjuster is hired and retained under contract to Corp Council. So the clerk's office, we receive the claims. And that's all we are supposed to do. And as Moana was saying, another clerk sitting here who's not an attorney who literally practiced in claims for years and overseeing the contract for the third party adjusters would not be able to explain this or help the public in the way that she is or that I can. It's an unfair burden on this office and has been for years. And now that we're in these seats, we can clearly recognize the issue.

Did you have anything else you wanted to add?

So, so the problem isn't the people that email it or mail it in.

The problem is the people that come in person or, or really the volume is with people who have questions. A lot of people will just call. I'll talk to them on the phone. But when there's really a problem like Mr. White Dell, they're coming in. and that's where the most of our time is spent with this. And we process a lot of documents.

And like legal aid wouldn't be sufficient or council ambassador.

The people who have the answer would be either court counsel or the third party adjuster. But because they're sometimes not able to reach them or they're not getting satisfactory answers and they just have more questions because they're frustrated and their property's been damaged or they've gotten hurt by something, They just want to talk to a human being that is involved in their process and with our job only being we're taking in their claim and we're sending it out to the people who oversee it, which is risk and the third party adjuster. Our involvement in that and our willingness and ability to talk to people because we think that's respectful. But it doesn't mean that it's the best service that the public can get. The public needs to reach the agency that's actually involved in managing their claim.

Before I call you, Member Senancy, are you Pau? And then I'm going to move on to Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Just checking if she had a response because she's holding the mic.

Oh, okay. Sorry, I cannot see from... Okay, thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez, followed by Member Senancy.

Okay, I'm all the way there. All right, so I see where Mr. Coby was referencing. In HRS 46-72, it says, within two years of the injuries accrued, shall give the individual identified in the respective county's charter, or if none is specified, the chairperson of the council, Chair Dee, of the county, or the clerk of the county in which the injuries occurred. Okay, so I think that was, I had the same question as Member Johnson, so I found that section and maybe that's helpful to him too. Okay, so if none is specified within the charter, so we would have to specify, we couldn't do what we did in the other, which is just like in compliance with state law, because state law then just points back to the county clerk or to Charlie.

Excuse me, and I have eight claims every single day, and they all have names. One from Molokai, one from Lanai, etc.,

But we're far more pleasant. Okay, I don't, yeah, I understand. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around it, and I, oh, okay, so here's the other thing I was thinking. I didn't write it down, because I was reading some of the complaints. So, along with... Member Poulton's suggestion and I understand that it is the claims are received in writing or mailed or hand delivered. So we're looking at software for like grants and we have like other maps and stuff. Would, like software to show status update of a person's claim be helpful to individuals if it was updated enough? And could that be done by a third party?

I can talk about, so we had a TPA about maybe six or seven years ago, and there was an internal program similar to what you're talking about. So if someone called, I would log into it, pull them up by name, and then I could see what the adjuster had added into it by notes, and then I could relay it to the claimant. We didn't have one that the claimant could log into, but that was, I mean, I don't see why that couldn't be done in this day and age. It's just, it's not something we used when I was there and I don't know what is used now.

Okay, so the answer to my question is yes. Yes. Is it a matter of funding?

I think that's a Corp Council question.

In terms of the funding of it, I would just say this. The claim can't be filed directly with a third-party administrator. It has to be filed with the county and then the county then would process it through its third-party administrator. So if there's an additional cost to it, that might be part of the issue. I know that, for instance, the... the EEOC platform and allows for people to enter into a portal with a certain amount of information and add information and documents into the form. So it's not that it's not impossible. The concern I have, and if we were gonna do something that's digital based, is that we're still gonna have the folks that the clerk's dealing with coming in asking for statuses in person. whoever is the recipient of it. But you probably could do something like that. We still need to have some system in place that's gonna timestamp these communications because it's jurisdictional. There are time limits. If they don't file the notice within a certain period of time, then they're barred, they're time barred. So it's really important not just that we give them an easy way to submit documents, but that we have documentation to verify exactly when things happened and what they filed. That's really a big part of the process. So that's a good idea. I think we would need to explore it and see whether or not that's something that we could do. In my view, it has to be filed with the county and so it would have to still be a platform that's a county platform and not the third party administrator. I was just gonna say if Ms. Draddington had anything to offer or add to that.

The process right now, so we have the third party administrator that we currently have, the contract started April 1, 2025. And right now our claims are submitted via a portal directly to them, but those are only for workers' compensation claims. the claims that are filed by the public still have to be received by the county and then they're transmitted to the third party administrator. They cannot accept claims on our behalf because that's the way government claims and public entity claims work. You have to file it with the entity that you're claiming against. So it's not, having public access to that that's not allowed. I'm sure there's a lot of legal standards for that just in general terms as far as public entity claims go. I can't speak to prior before we had the current TPA that we have right now because that's when I started with the county. But I know previously the impression that I've gotten and experience that I've heard secondhand from the previous TPA there were problems in the handling and the processing of claims and their responsiveness. And that's not something that I've experienced so far. And obviously with something devastating like the wildfires, we can't really, I wouldn't use that as an example. And unfortunately for the current claimant that sort of sparked this, again, I personally spoke to him more than one occasion and There's just nothing, if someone's not satisfied with the information that they're given, they run it up and they run it up and they run it up and there's not much that, you know, we can only explain it so many times and the answer isn't going to change, unfortunately, and that was part of the problem. And him saying that no one was responding to him was not true. And again, our answer just didn't change. So he just kept, asking the question and getting the same answer from multiple people. there wasn't anything, you know what I mean?

Yes, I understand. Sorry. Yeah, yeah, no, no, because it sounds like, I mean, the issue isn't so much like who the claims is filed with, it's who the public then assumes they have that is responsible for seeing the claims through. And so if we could like figure out how to have, I don't know if it would be risk and it would be like another position, I understand that your administrative person is responsible It's vacant, that position. But having someone be able to have the public talk to is the issue, not the actual filing of the claim with the hard copy or via mail. It's the follow-up.

Okay. Mahalo, Chair. Thank you. Member Sunanti, followed by Member Johnson.

Mahalo, Chair. Thank you. We had a great gal yesterday, Kelsey, with Youthline. She was great with receiving calls, but that was on another issue. And then my staff probably takes about 20 calls in Hana as well. But for Ms. Andrade, you work under... and Drownington, sorry, I'm like Kool-Aid today. You're under the Corporation Council? Okay, and then it's just you and your office, how many? And you just process workers' compensation to the TPA?

So risk management, we have our risk management officer who is not here and that's normally who would be here. That's why I'm here. And then we have two safety specialists, and we have me. And my job title is lost control specialist, which is actually supposed to be the liaison for the liability, auto, and property claims. And then we have a vacant workers' compensation specialist position right now and a claims assistant position that are both vacant. So at the moment right now, both of those plus mine are the hats that I'm wearing. And that's just logistics right now. That's because we're having a hard time filling the positions. Again, the claims are received, they're transmitted to Sedgwick, and then Sedgwick handles the claims. They do that on our behalf, so we do work closely with them, but once the claim is opened by Sedgwick, unless it's a smaller value, and then we handle those in-house, but those are still opened and maintained by Sedgwick. So they are the main point of contact for all claimants once a claim is filed. But we are available for questions, and we do take calls, and we do speak directly to claimants, and we work with the departments that are involved. So we are involved in the process, but we don't actually handle the process themselves.

And so you're receiving also claims from the clerks?

We get copied on everything.

Just like all the other departments? Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Thank you, Member Sonnensee. Member Johnson, followed by Member Sugimura.

Thank you, Chair. Well, it sounds like we're playing hot potato with this, but the idea that maybe we could lessen the burden just doing appointment only, doing online, those kind of things, I would totally support. Maybe a position in the Chair's office and to work on this because by state law, you got to take it. It's either clerk or the chair. You guys can debate and your officers are right next to each other. So hopefully, If you can't go there, you just go across the hallway and there it is. But I don't know. I'm just trying to come up with solutions because we're changing the charter for something big when it seems we just need someone to receive the claims and then that person dishes it out to the correct people. I don't know. I just wanted to maybe hear if anybody thought of those suggestions, but I'm ready to move on. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Sounds like we have a couple people waiting to respond to that. I'll start with Deputy Corporation Counsel and then I'll go on to County Clerk.

I just want to make it clear that as we sit here today, we have already identified the clerk's office as the recipient for claims under Section 13-6. So Chair Lee is off the hook in terms of receiving claims unless we made changes to the charter. So right now it is the clerk that's identified and the amendment is to identify somebody different, Corporation Council. Thanks, just wanted to clarify. Thanks for that.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Sugimura.

So important, because we're talking about people's concerns. And I like what member Johnson said, we're treating it like a hot potato because it really is important. But who's gonna be the one who will hold it and nurture it and then move it forward to, was it Cedric? Cedric, how big is your office? You said there's no room for you to speak to people,

So the office is very small. We're in the Trask building. So we don't have, there's no lobby or anything. It's just a door you open with a badge and there's the desk that the claims assistant sits at. And then there's offices and they're all small. And we have a, what we call our break room, but it's just a table and there's a microwave and a small fridge. And there's really, and we have one empty office right now that is for a position that is vacant. And then we have the front desk, which is vacant because the position is vacant. But there's no seating or extra chairs or anything like that. No, ma'am.

Okay.

I think it sounds like Corp Council has to figure out something and it sounds like your office is too small for what you're supposed to be doing if part of it is customer service.

We do take, I meet with claimants when we have, for workers' compensation claims. I will meet with them in my office. I do have a chair at my desk. And we do, like I said, we take claimant calls, and we're always available, and I frequently speak to claimants and explain the process and make sure that they're in touch with Sedgwick. Again, Mr. Weedle, I spoke to him multiple times. He came to Corporation Council and spoke to Deputy Council multiple times. He just didn't like what he was hearing. Thank you.

If I may, I know we're talking about one person a lot, but I don't want to make a charter amendment based on one person's actions. So I think it's very important to just acknowledge that it's the process in which we accept information. And I know everybody has said this, but short staff and insufficient office size is probably everybody's problem in the county. I do find it interesting that we have somebody accepting information that doesn't necessarily process the information. That's almost like DEM accepting an SMA application. But we do have about three more things on the agenda. So unless anybody has any burning issues, and then I saw people raise their hands. You wanna make it quick?

Yeah, I'll do this very quickly. I think that, you know, it's not just a hot potato. There really is a problem where our office can pretty much invent a conflict or create a conflict by being the person who interacts at the notice level so that later on when we have to litigate this because someone does file an actual claim with the circuit court or the district court or whomever, We now have a real issue as to the types of conflicts that are gonna come up. So I think this deserves a little bit more consideration than just who's gonna be the most inconvenienced by dealing with members of the public. Many of these are significant claims or will eventually be significant claims.

So if not you folks and the clerk's job is to maintain vital records, but not necessarily process claims, then who? And I know that's the conversation, but if it's not both of you, then who is it?

Can I clarify something? Because I think we've gotten a little off track here, and part of this is my fault, so I'll own that. The issue is not accepting the claims necessarily. It's dealing with the public and explaining the process, which I just happen to have specialized knowledge of, but that was never on any of my predecessors, and I don't think it's going to be anyone that succeeds me. that's where the issue is and i'm not blaming anyone for not making calls or any of that what i'm saying is that we're in the wrong department because we don't handle the processing at all we're the recipients and what we end up with are really angry claimants in our office all the time It's not one person, even though I brought up Wydell, he's just the most recent. There are many. It should be handled by the department that handles the processing of it. And you're not going to make yourself a witness just by accepting it because in Corp Council, as you all know, that's where you accept service of complaints and you're not being called as a witness. So I just, I want to keep that on track, but I also want to tell you that this is such an important amendment to us that we're willing to give up the others to get this on the ballot. That's how important it is to us and our staff.

Okay. Members, any other questions before we move on? Double, triple checking. Okay, go ahead.

Can we defray this?

Okay, okay, we can defer. Do you guys mind if we defer? We'll do another one on the 16th. He's gonna come back and be like, oh yeah, and by the way, we almost did something.

Do we have the full day? What day again? 16th. And then it's nine to 4.30? No, no, 1.30 to 4.30, just like this one. I don't understand why we aren't having like a full day on all the... I don't know.

I didn't think we think this was going to take all this long.

I mean, there's 14 of them. I know. Why would we not do a full day? Well, I am probably for the next one. Not blaming you, Jeff.

Yeah, no, no, no. This is what happens when we aren't allowed to discuss what's going to come on.

I know, but 14.

We're not going to get through. Even seven was a long shot. So I am gonna actually ask that we, and we're not there yet, but we will be there soon, file reso 2694 because it's kind of built into the first one we did.

So moved.

Okay, let's do the other one first and we'll get there, but I appreciate your support on that. It is built into the first one after discussing it with corporation, I'm sorry, clerks. It is a bit more built into Rezo 25, 2015. So we'll defer this one. So without... Any objection? I will defer this one, Resolution 26.61, and we can figure out what we're gonna do with that one. No objection? I know, I know. We wanna make the best votes possible. I don't really wanna horse trade with OCS to go choose your champion one, but okay. Sorry. I'm gonna defer, I heard no objections. Okay, and then we can move on. Let's kind of skip ahead if you folks don't mind to resolution 26-94. Let me actually find it. Okay, bye, thank you so much, thank you. I'm just gonna skip ahead so we can, so we have it for us. Resolution 26-94 entitled proposing an amendment to the revised charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended on publishing digest of the County of the Council's bills. Resolution 26-94's purpose is to place on the next general election ballot the question of whether the revised charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended effective January 2nd, 2027 to allow digest of all County Council bills that pass first reading and the votes on, each bill to be published online on a website maintained by the county inside of a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least three days before its final reading. Let's take testimony and then I can explain. So staff, do we have anybody wishing to testify on this item?

No one signed up for testimony, so we'll do last call. If anyone wants to testify, please come up to the podium or raise your hand on teams. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair Nguyen has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you very much. Without objection, I will now close oral testimony. I heard no objection. Thank you so much. Written testimony will still be accepted. So members, as I described earlier, this is quite similar to Resolution 25-215. Corp Council has similar concerns, as he described earlier. We won't make him read all of the stuff, as he said. And in conversation with county clerks, they suggested, and it's quite similar to the first one, so they're able to kind of fold it in. Cool?

Cool. Move to file?

Yes. At this time, I'm going to move to file. I have a motion to be made by Member Paltin, second by Member Sinensi. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of filing this, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye.

Chair, that's six ayes, three excuse. Councilmember Cook, Sugimura, and Betonghen. Motion passes.

Okay, thank you very much. We're gonna go back to resolution 26-11. And we have about 10 minutes. So actually, I will talk to you folks if you guys wanna do resolution 26-11, or since we have member Rollins-Fernandez here in person, if she wants to do 26-85. which is your yeah, 26 dash 85 is you're removing the English translation of the Hawaii state model.

You're hearing self explanatory.

I figured it may be quick and we could do it in the next 10 minutes. Is that okay with everyone?

Cause I think the next one, it's removing the English translation.

Yeah. Did you have anything you want to say? I mean, I'm going to, I got to call up all of it first, but I figured it would be fast or, and you're here in person. I don't know if you're going to be here in person on the 26th. So 26 or 16. I'm sorry. 16th. Yes. I keep saying 26 cause it's 26 on the thing, but we will recess this until the 16th. So I wanted to give you the opportunity now. So we have before us resolution 26-85 proposing an amendment to the preamble of the revised charter of the county of Maui 1983 as amended, removing the English translation of the Hawaii state model. Resolution 26-85's purpose is to place on the next general election ballot the question of whether the revised charter of the county of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended, effected upon passage by removing the English translation of the Hawaii state model in the Maui county charter preamble. allowing the original phrase to stand on its own. At this time, I'm going to ask for comments from Member Rollins-Fernandez and then Deputy Corporation Counsel.

Mahalo for reading that section. I have nothing to add to that. As we know, there isn't a direct translation from one language to another ever, not just to English or English to that encompasses more than the words in English that it's pigeonholed to. And so in order for it to not be, that's the proposal for the removal of the English translation.

Thank you. Corporation Council, do you have anything to add?

The only thing to add, I don't see anything that would require us to have a translation in the charter. Thank you. And so what you are interested in doing seems to be perfectly legal. I would point out that HRS Chapter 5-9 establishes the state's motto and then provides that it says, quote, it is translated into English to mean, and then it provides a translation. So the only thing I could say is that you might want to clean up the language a little bit to say that it's disputed as to what the translation between Hawaiian and English is. But I'll leave that to you. Otherwise, I'd have no other comments.

Thank you. Before we get into discussion, staff, any testimony?

There's currently no one signed up for testimony, so we'll do a last call. If anyone wants to testify, please come to the podium and begin or raise your hand on teams. The count is three, two, one, seeing none. Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you very much. Without objection, I will now close oral testimony. Written testimony can continue to be accepted. No objection, thank you very much. Oral testimony is closed. Do we have any other discussion on this item? We will limit it to three-ish minutes, but that's pretty much all the amount of time we have in this committee. Any discussion? I think Member Rollins-Fernandez said that it stands on its own and there's no direct translation and it is disputed whether or not that that's the accurate translation. If anybody wanted to understand what it was translated to, they're welcome to Google it. Any discussion?

Just a quick one. Not so much that it's disputed, because it means that, but it also means more than that. So it's not just that. So it can be translated in this way, but it can also be translated in other ways. And so it's just more holistic.

Sounds good, thank you. I would like to entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of Resolution 26-85, including any non-substantive revisions. So moved.

Second.

I have a motion by Member Rollins-Fernandez, a second by Member Sinensi. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye.

Chair, that's six ayes, three excused. Councilmember Cook, Sugimura, and Betongen, motion passes.

Okay, members, and if you don't mind, I'm gonna do one quick thing. So I had two things, but one of them was gonna be reso 24-100. And if I can get there, then I'll do some discussion. But I'm gonna plan on filing it so we can whittle down what we can whittle down as we can try to address it in budget and we will continue to hopefully maybe have it on the next charter amendment, but for right now, this body and who knows what we'll be like next year does a good job at helping our people. So because we have so many, I'm going to file it, but before I do, I'm going to call it up. So we have before us resolution 24-100 entitled proposing amendment to the article nine of the VARCH charter. of the County of Maui 1983 as amended relating to the uses of open space, natural resources, cultural resources, and city views preservation fund. Resolution 24-100's purpose is to place on the next general election ballot the question of whether the revised charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended should be amended effective July 1, 2025, I'm sorry, 2027. to minimize wildfire risk by authorizing the use of open space, natural resources, cultural resources, and scenic reuse preservation fund for the regular removal and disposal of fuel hazard. There was an ASF, but considering I'm planning on filing, I'm not gonna send it out unless I need to right now, but I will take testimony. So staff, do we have any testifiers wishing to testify on this item?

Chair, there's currently no one signed up to testify, so we'll do a last call. If anyone would like to testify, please come to the podium or raise your hand on teams. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you very much, members. Seeing there are no individuals wishing to testify without objection, I will now close oral testimony for this session. Thank you very much. As a reminder, written testimonies continue to be accepted for discussion. This is my proposal, which is why I'm comfortable pulling it. I would one day love to see it on our charter. I would love to use this money to be able to support the preservation of open space fund. Because like I said, the last time we had this up, we do a great job at purchasing the property and then not so great of a job maintaining the property in open space. But this council has done a good job at trying to make it work. within our budget. And so I'm comfortable pulling it now, although it's not my favorite thing, but we do have so many things that are going to be on the ballot. So that's what I have to say, Chair Lee.

Okay, so are we done with that one? Because I just want to, I have a question on 2661. Did you defer that one?

2661. Yes, we did. We're going to continue that discussion because it was too much of a hot potato, hot potato. They're going to continue to discuss.

Just for the record, I would suggest the Department of Finance.

Thank you. See? And that's why we deferred. Now look, we have another option. Thank you. So... I was going to file this one, resolution 24-100. Can I have a motion? Thank you. I have a motion made by Member Rollins-Fernandez, second by Member Sinensi. Any other discussion? Go ahead.

Mahalo, Chair, for sacrificing your proposal.

Thank you. I do have another one, so we'll go with one. I can choose. All those in favor to file, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Chair, that's six ayes, three excused. Councilmember Cook, Sugimura, and Betongen. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Okay. It is 4-29 and for... To kind of wrap up what we did today, so we deferred the first item, which is 25-215, and we're gonna see a combo in our next meeting on the 16th with 25-217, which is both the computation of time and the language about notifications and in compliance with state law. We passed resolution 25-216, We deferred Resolution 26-61 with further discussion on the 16th. We filed Resolution 2694, we passed Resolution 2685, and we filed Resolution 24-100. The rest will continue to be discussed on the 16th. Yes, .

Oh, did we hit seven?

Oh, great question.

And then while you're looking, I just, thank you for chairing this meeting. You're welcome. I hope the members who are not here are gonna watch this meeting, because these are important, and I don't want to end up taking up more time relitigating or rediscussing everything that we just discussed for three hours today on the bills that we just made recommendations to. However, they need to I don't want to have to redo these three hours because then in when we recess and the reconvene meeting they were only gonna have three hours again and I that irritates the crap out of me because The this is important. This is our charter and so I fly here to be here in person because it's challenging to do this remotely and I have Proposals and I want to be able to be here in person So we can work out whatever needs to be changed, because it's important to the community, it's important to me, and we've generally reserved a full day or more to do this, and to have this in three-hour segments is just... not how I would do it and not how I would recommend anyone do it. And I'm really disappointed that this is how it's being done right now. Thank you for filling in. And yeah, thank you. That's it.

Yeah, I agree. I don't really want to rediscuss all of these items, especially because we are going to defer three of them. The reso 2015 and 2017, 2017 should be a decent conversation and I hope to see some progress in 2661, the process of claims.

And the others, I mean, are kind of, it's gonna take some discussion.

It's gonna take more than three hours.

I don't know, like, does staff know if we're planning to recess again after the, I don't think we're gonna finish on the 16th.

I don't know, do we have time to recess again?

Did the chair of this committee, like, have that discussion before he was planned to leave?

Chair, it was discussed and the plan was to proceed as is currently discussed, which is to have today's meeting and then to recess to the afternoon on the 16th. If further time is needed, then my hope is when Committee Chair Patongan is back, we can discuss further options about polling for another meeting to complete the discussion.

Mahalo, I just think that's inconsiderate for those that don't live on this island, mahalo chair.

Yeah, thank you. So members, if there are no objections, I will recess this meeting to 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16th, 2026 to the same Microsoft Teams link and connections we are using today with in-person viewing available in this council chamber. Any objections?

No objections.

Seeing none, thank you very much. It is 4.33 and this meeting is in recess.