Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Will the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee meeting on June 2nd and June 16th, 2026 please reconvene? It is 10.04 a.m. on June 18th, 2026. I am your Chair, Kawanoe Butungan. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. I believe Committee Vice Chair Nohelani Uhuhajens will be joining us shortly. Council Member Tom Cook.

Aloha, good morning, Chair.

Morning. Council Member Gabe Johnson.

Good morning, Chair, Council Members, community members. There's no testifiers at the Lanai District Office, and I'm here and ready to work. Thank you. Thank you.

Council Chair Alice Lee.

Aloha, Chair. I'm home in my workspace alone, and my morning greeting is from Rapa Nui i Orana to everyone. Thank you.

I Orana. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Tamara Paulton.

Aloha kakahiaka and i orana kakou. Streaming live and direct from the Council Chambers. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I believe Council Member Rollins-Hernandez will be joining us shortly as well. Council Member Shane Tenente. Aloha Chair and i orana. Aloha and Yorah. And then Council Member Yukile Sugimura will also be joining us in a little bit as well. From Corporation Council, we have with us Deputy Corporation Council Colby and Deputy Corporation Council Gores. We will also have with us today the County Clerk, Deputy County Clerk, Budget Director, and Boards and Commissions Liaison. We also have with us our great committee staff. Good morning, everyone. Oh, and I see here we have Vice Chair Nohilanipu Uhajan.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone.

Okay, so everybody please see the last page of the agenda for information regarding meeting connectivity. Members, this morning we will complete our deliberations on the two remaining proposed charter amendments that we did not take up on Tuesday. After that, we will move on to the items we previously deferred. There are a total of six deferred items, and we'll begin with resolution 25215, the proposed charter amendment on the notice and conduct of public hearings. Once we have gone through all outstanding items, we will review the total number of charter amendments approved. Right now, we have passed three. Resolution 25216, deadlines related to voter initiative, recall, and charter amendments. Resolution 2685, remove the English translation of the Hawaii state model from the preamble. And Resolution 2695, allow reappointment of members of the Board of Ethics for one successive term. If the committee feels the final number is too high, we can discuss prioritizing the amendments and consider revisiting our earlier decisions. Member Paulton, you were seeking recognition.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify that there is one of mine that had previously be passed and can't be reconsidered and it has to do with how days are counted. So there's four right now that's scheduled to be on the ballot and one cannot be reconsidered.

Yes, thank you, Member Palten. I guess to clarify, that had been taken up at a previous meeting, so it's not part of this reconvened meeting. The only ones we can reconsider in this current meeting are the ones that have been posted on this agenda and they were passed on the 2nd and 16th. Thank you, Member Palten. Okay, so before I move on, I'd like to recognize Council Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aloha kakahiaka, Chair Kalamai. Mokulele was delayed and so I'm gonna take this opportunity again to make the request that when we take up large agendas like these that we know will take more than a three hour meeting and I would like us to consider two consecutive full days or some version of that like Member Poulton is planning to do with the South Maui Community Plan. just for us who don't live on Maui and for those that may have other plans and keiki at home. Mahalo, Chair.

Mahalo, Member Rollins-Fernandez. And again, thank you for allowing us to utilize your regularly scheduled committee day so that we can have a full day's worth of deliberation.

You're very welcome, all of you.

All right, now. Let's return to resolution 2688 entitled proposing an amendment to the revised charter of the county of Maui 1983 as amended on the language of section 9-9 appropriations and changes. Resolution 2688'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 the mayor with approval from the council to pass an emergency appropriation for an application for a line of credit and clarify that the 1% limitation for emergency appropriations does not apply to funds that have already been allocated to an emergency fund. Let's start with opening comments from the requester. Is the budget director online? Yes, Chair. Thank you. Ms. Milner, would you like to provide opening remarks?

Aloha, Chair. Aloha, Council members. Mahalo for your time this morning. Yes, I ask that this be considered because I think as we've all realized in the last few years as we've been considering these appropriations from the emergency fund, the 1% language is a little unclear. My understanding and my discussions with Corporation Council, those funds have already been appropriated to an emergency fund, so we're not appropriating new money. It's already there for our use. But the way it's currently written, we're still getting jammed up against that 1% allocation. So as we've seen with the recent Kona storms, we had to do an emergency appropriation at 1% and then come back in for an additional amendment to go through the full two readings to allocate additional funds that were necessary for that recovery, which just doesn't seem practical if we're trying to do a quick turnaround response. The other part of this is to get rid of language. There's some language around an emergency note. The Department of Finance and I did some research and that seems to be something that exists in one municipality and nowhere else. So we felt it would be more practical to change that to a line of credit if we were ever in a circumstance where our emergency fund and our reserves weren't sufficient to meet an existing emergency. So that's the purpose of introducing this change to the charter, and I'm happy to be here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Director Milner. Before moving on to discussion, I'll receive testimony for grade 10-11. Staff, is there anybody signed up to testify on this item?

Thank you, Chair. There's currently no one signed up to testify. May I initiate last? Please. If anyone in the audience or on teams would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or use the raise your hand function on teams and staff will unmute you. This is the final call to testify. Three, two, one. Chair, no one has indicated they wish to testify.

Thank you. Members, seeing as there are no individuals wishing to testify without objection, I will close oral testimony for this item. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Members, I will implement a three-minute questioning period per member with a one-minute follow-up if needed. Since this was requested by the administration, I will start on the end of the row and work my way down. I'll give deference to Chair Lee. Chair, did you have any questions or comments that you'd like to make on this proposal?

the um proposal seems reasonable especially in an emergency so i have no questions thank you thank you chair member paulton um i'm having technical difficulties with my device can you come back to me please sure uh member johnson

Well, I've been talking about it for a while that we need to be ready for upcoming storms and climate change and the extreme weather we've been experiencing. So I don't have any questions. I support this if that's what helps get that money out because I'm expecting more damage and more money to be coming in our future. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

No questions.

Thank you, Member Rollins. I like how efficient we're being this morning. We might not need the entire day.

And maybe you can just say by a show of hands, that would be more efficient.

Member Cook, anything? I have no problem with this. It makes sense. Thank you. Member Uhuhajens.

I do just have one quick question. So for budget director, these are going to be like recognized emergencies by the governor, by the federal government, by us. What's going to qualify the emergency?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Yes, we would proceed as we have currently with the emergencies. We would list, you know, any emergency declarations that have triggered this. Okay. It wouldn't just be the mayor wants some extra money. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

I'd assume so, but just double, triple checking. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Chair. That's all for me, Chair.

Thank you, Member Uhu Hodgins. Member Senanti. Supportive, Chair.

you member sanity is that comes to me then um director milner can you explain the difference between a line of credit and an emergency note thank you chair uh yes i can try i'll be honest what exactly an emergency note is wasn't entirely clear which is one of the reasons we wanted to make this change um I think there's one jurisdiction on the East Coast that does it and they haven't had to do it very often. So finding examples of how it works were very unclear. So it seemed switching it to something that actually we are familiar with and very clearly understand a line of credit was the way to go. But I can find that documentation on the emergency notes and send it to you.

So have we ever utilized that emergency note?

I do not believe so, no.

okay so following the kona lows and the um august 8th wildfires then we didn't need additional credit we only ever utilized funds within the existing emergency fund that's correct and uh we also you know may have other reserves that we're able to tap into if for some reason the emergency fund were exhausted but i really hope we never have to do that as do i thank you director no other questions from me All right, members, seeing as, oh, sorry, Member Paltin.

I don't know why my computer doesn't want, oh, it just connected to the internet, but one question I wanted to clarify on because I haven't been able to access the internet and I didn't check when I looked at it. Is this one signed off by Corp Council?

Corporation Council. Yeah, a deputy did sign off on this.

Oh, okay, so you guys don't have any problems?

No, no problem.

Okay.

I'm ready Thank You member Walton. Okay, so It didn't sound like we needed a second round the questioning but just to make sure I'd like to double check with the body Are you guys ready to take action? Okay So that being the case I would like to entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of resolution 2688 including any non-substantive revisions

So moved.

Okay, so I saw Member Cook first, and then I'll take second, or Chair Lee as the second. Any further discussion on the matter? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Chair, that's eight ayes, zero nos. Member Sugimura excused. Motion passes. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members.

Okay. We now have before us resolution 2689 entitled proposing an amendment to the revised charter of the county of Maui 1983 as amended to section 910 on the transfer of appropriations Resolution 26-89 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 the mayor to transfer all or a portion of an unencumbered appropriation balance within the same department, subject to a reporting requirement and maximum amount to be established by the County Council by ordinance. This was also transmitted to us from the budget director. So as the requester, Director Milner, would you please provide opening remarks?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, so the inspiration for this i guess is honolulu section 2-17.2 in their revised ordinances that provides their council is able to set thresholds for transfers within a department that don't trigger a resolution so Let's say the council wanted to allow the mayor to transfer up to $50,000 within a department, and then we would submit either a monthly or a quarterly report that would also be set in the ordinance to the council on any transfers that happened. So it would be in the council's control what those thresholds were and what the reporting requirements are, but this would give us that flexibility so that every movement of funds doesn't have to come to you by resolution if that's something you're comfortable with. Thank you chair.

Thank you budget director. Um, before moving on to discussion, let's receive testimony on this item. Great 10 12 staff. Is there anybody signed up to testify on this item?

Thank you chair. There's currently nobody signed up to testify.

Thank you. Can you please do a last call or oral testimony?

Yes. If there's anyone in the audience or on teams that would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony. or use the raise your hand function on Teams and staff will unmute you. This is your final call to testify. Three, two, one. Chair, no one has indicated they wish to testify.

Thank you, staff. Members, seeing as there are no individuals wishing to testify without objection, I will now close oral testimony on this item. Thank you, members. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Okay, so since I misjudged how many questions were gonna be asked for the first one, I will take by a show of hands, is there a need to go down the line or do you guys? Okay, so I see more this time and we'll go down the line. I'll start again with Chair Lee and then work my way down this way. Chair Lee.

Thank you. Director Milner, can you tell us how many times you've come upon this situation where a transfer was necessary?

Thank you, Chair. I'll have to look, but I know at least in the last few months, we've done at least two resolutions for the Department of Public Works to move funds due to the fuel costs. So I don't know that it's something that happens super regularly, but I thought it might be nice to have the flexibility.

Yeah. I'm afraid I don't support this one. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Member Paulton.

Thank you, Chair, thank you, Director Milner. My first question is if you were to propose a number, what would it be? Like of dollar amount, 50,000, 75,000, what would it be?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Palten. The current Honolulu one is it must be approved by resolution if it exceeds $100,000 or 10% of the amount appropriated for that activity in the operating budget, whichever is less. So that might be a good starting point for discussion.

Okay, and then the next question I have is, when the verbiage unencumbered, when we approve the budget, all of these monies are, we're not just giving free money, there's a purpose for it. So can you define to me what you're interpreting unencumbered as?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Fulton. Yes, unencumbered, the funds have been allocated, but a contract hasn't been issued or a PO hasn't been issued. So they haven't been formally encumbered for that use yet. That's how we look at it.

So like vacancies in positions would be fair game, tires, tubes, and whatever, all of that would be fair game?

think we need to have a discussion about that because uh honolulu doesn't do i don't think the a b split like we do so you know if you still wanted us to come to you if it was an a b movement we could do it that way but if it's moving b to b then maybe it would just be the report yeah i think um

I would like to hear if it's an A and then BC is one, right? Movement, but if it's BB and then are you talking about like, so for example, environmental management has your solid waste, your wastewater and your EPNS. And if we were theoretically allowing BC movement to BC movement, would you take from wastewater and give to solid waste or something like that? That's not what you had in mind.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Peralta. No, those are all funded by special funds, so that would not be possible. We would have to do an amendment to move it from one fund to the other, and that would not be as simple as just reallocating the funding. That would need an ordinance.

So like parks from West Maui to South Maui, something like that would be what you're talking about?

would be more parks from uh one program to another because west maui and south maui both fall under the same program so if for some reason it needed to go from recreation and support services to administration or vice versa things like that and um public works one that uh you reference in charlie's question what was those from it was from i think

vacancies A to fuel costs, so then that wouldn't, if we're saying we don't want A to BC, that wouldn't even be covered? Do you have an example that would be covered in that scenario?

Yes, let me pull up my log, but I know we have had one recently where we moved from one program to another. I think actually the first public works resolution, it included an AB movement, but it may also have included a BB movement from program to program. I'll have to double check.

Okay. Just as a follow up, if you can consider, um, if we don't make a timeline for doing that, maybe like, you know, if we have, if we don't do it within a month or something.

Thank you. Member Paulton member Johnson.

At this time, I don't have any questions. It seems like the number or the amount of money is gonna be to be determined, and that's really where I think my discussion would be. So right now, no questions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. First, I wanna thank you for getting a gauge of how many questions there are. I appreciate the responsiveness to your members, particularly this one.

It can be quite difficult sometimes.

So I support this. I think this is great. I think sometimes the charter has way too much detail in it. I see this as just removing a prohibition or a requirement to do it this way, which removes power from the council. I see this, and then I'll ask for a correction if I understand this correctly. is this would enable transfer, but it would have to be prescribed before it can be done. So we would have to, so this is a two-step process as I understand it. We're removing the requirement by resolution for any amount, and then in order for the administration to do it a different way, the council would first have to set that framework up as we're discussing. So is that a correct understanding of this?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Valdez-Fernandez. Yes, and if the body, for example, when we first start out, doesn't want to allow any transfers, they can set that by ordinance. Without a resolution, they can set that by ordinance as well. It just allows the council the flexibility to determine how they want those transfers to proceed.

Right, okay, so then the department could transfer within department, not to other departments, however the council determines, and if we wanted it to stay the same, that maybe some council members feel that it should stay the same, that by passing this, we could just keep it any amount by resolution. But we could consider something like Oahu with a threshold and other conditions, and then put that into the code, and then that's where the administration would follow the procedure.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and then I think another example of unencumbered is sometimes we, as council members during budget, will put funding for a priority that falls through. And I've had this happen to myself in my district. And for whatever reason, it's not gonna move forward. And so instead of just holding up that money, it could be moved to somewhere else such as with the Boys and Girls Club that we did this fiscal year in moving to help them to get the Molokai Boys and Girls Club open or repaired, the facility. Okay, I think that's everything unless you wanted to correct anything I said, budget director.

I'm good, thank you, Chair. Mahalo, Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Member Cook.

I don't have any questions. I see the benefit of the flexibility and still the maintenance of oversight, so I'm okay, thank you. Thank you, Member Cook. Member Uhuhajian.

Thank you, Chair. I feel quite similarly. I think a bigger discussion will be needed when we talk about the amount. I think we saw this a little while ago, too, when police was in here and they were asking to transfer funds, but I think it was from salaries to operations. Is that going to be the same thing? I don't know if Member Paltona is asking that question. if I was eating, if it was like category to category or if it's like from all the different categories, can you please explain that to me again?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Lujan. Yes, I think that would be set by ordinance. So if the body wanted resolutions for A to BC movements, that would be set in the code. But then, you know, A to A or B to B, well, A to A we wouldn't be able to do because we'd have to move the EP. So that would be an ordinance. But B to B could be done without the resolution.

Okay.

If that's how the body wants to set it.

Okay. Yeah, I think for me, the bigger discussion would be the amount, because when we do our budget, we hear like, please don't cut us, please don't cut us, here's what we're doing, this is super, super important, and I get it, you know, and we're trying to plan for the next 12 months, and life just lives, and it doesn't always work out that way, so I get that, but I think... I'll save a bunch of discussion when we have to do this by ordinance, when the next council has to do this by ordinance, and I probably would prefer to start off slow, but thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Member Sinensi. Can you repeat that in the mic? That was my question. It's been answered. Thank you. Thank you, Member Sinensi. I guess for myself, I'm more in line with Chair Lee on this particular one. When I was with the Department of Transportation, I did find it humbug to have to come before this body whenever we needed to make a budget amendment. And with the MPO, I similarly had to go before my board for everything. But I did understand the need for it. And now that I'm in this position, I feel even more strongly about the need that the way that it's set up should remain. And that's because we have one chance to set the budget for the year. Any amendments that need to be made afterwards come from the administration. And so that is a level of control that I think already undermines our appropriation authority. And giving discretionary control Authority to move funds within a department further erodes that Oversight from the council and and from the public I Also, don't like the incentive structure that it could create, you know I know that it would largely depend on the threshold that the council chooses to set via ordinance but when we appropriate funds, it's not always for a specific project or program sometimes it's for a large bucket and and that could create an incentive to not move forward with council priorities in order to fund a project from the department or the administration that this body then initially didn't support. So I personally like the level of the way that the checks and balances are currently set up, and so would probably be voting in line with Chair Lee on this matter. But I do hear the comments from the members, and I think if I'm reading the room correctly, the will of the body is to move forward with the proposal. That being the case, is there anybody who would like a second round of questions or comments? Member Palten, staff, let's set the timer at two minutes for this round.

Thank you, Chair. So I guess I'm alone in, I just wanna know, I mean, I guess maybe it's not moving forward, I don't know, but I wanted to know the parameters, if those could be clearly laid out. Like you said, you couldn't move it from enterprise fund or whatever to different categories. if the majority is in the Lee-Batongan camp, I would propose a compromise where if we don't, finish the action within a certain time and it's under a certain threshold, I don't want to hinder people because sometimes we're in budget or South Maui Community Plan or whatever, but we do meet for council twice a month, so it should be able to get done. If it's resolution, is it just one reading? Is that correct?

That's correct, one reading.

Okay, I mean, I would be willing to further this along and I would like to know the parameters by which exactly I'm not supportive of A to B categories. And then like you said, enterprise to other types of funds where rate payers or whatever. But I think other than that, I'm okay with 100,000 threshold, especially if the council doesn't act within a month, you know?

Thank you, Member Paltin. So for the second round, I'm gonna go by show of hands. And the next one I see is Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Okay, so the way it's done now is within the department, A, B, or C account would have to be done by resolution. If this passes and we don't pass a bill to amend the code to prescribe the law that they would have to follow in order to do it a different way than by resolution every time, then the administration would still need to do it by resolution. we set the parameters. We tell the administration what the parameters are that they have to follow. And if we say not enterprise fund, not these things, not B to A over a certain amount, or if it's between this or exceeds this amount, then we want to have a report sent to us. It doesn't have to be a resolution, but we have oversight. We have the quarterly reports that are public for the public to see. And as Member Uuhajian said, if this passes by the electorate, it just removes the inflexibility and gives us flexibility to put it into code how the council and the public would like it done. And so if we want it to remain the way it is by resolution, any amount, then we can put that into code and it would just stay that way. So no question, thanks.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Chair Lee.

Thank you. I fail to see enough justification to pass this proposal. This is one of our main authorities. Our role is the power of the purse. no one from the administration could ever complain that this council has ever held up any proposed amendment with regard to the budget not with my knowledge and so we have had so many different special council meetings and numerous numerous countless amendments so all these changes to the budget is a signal to the administration that they have to be a little bit more disciplined in how they implement the budget. Because from the very beginning, we're always asking, as Council Member Nohe mentioned, we're always asking departments, what are your priorities? Tell us your priorities. And they don't ever tell us their priority because everything is important. But then we end up with a budget that is so flush with money that we have carryover the savings up the kazoo. So my inclination is not to help make it less disciplined and I would like the departments and the mayor to be more focused on what they proposed from the very beginning and try to stay with that. So that's where I stand. So I will not vote in favor of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Any other questions or comments for round two? Okay, that being the case, I think Chair Lee and I are in the minority on this one, and so I will entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of Resolution 2689, including any non-substantive revisions.

So moved.

Okay, so motion made by Member Rollins-Fernandez, seconded by Member Cook. Any further discussion? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. And if this charter amendment does pass, gets on the ballot and passes and becomes, you know, is amended this way, As I've done in the past, I don't have any rush to make it different. I'm happy to keep it by resolution, any amount, and start slow, as some of my colleagues have asked, especially the one that said all the important things. Member Uhudjins. I know there's, always fear when there's change, but I personally don't have any rush to make it set a certain amount. That's not something I'm gonna be pursuing hard or anything, but I do like the ability to have some flexibility. Mahalo chair.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Any further discussion? Member Paltin.

I think I would have liked to have the parameters of what was recommended first, because I don't necessarily trust all the members to understand the various funds and categories that are in the budget. So like, although I know it wouldn't be exactly and it could change, I think a roadmap would have helped like of why and what is being proposed because I just don't trust all my colleagues to understand the budget, sorry.

Understood, Member Palten. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

For my second and final. So until we pass a bill to amend the code, it would still be by resolution, any amount. We would have to... set that parameters first before the administration could do anything different. So we would create that roadmap and understand, perhaps budget director, like we could have like a couple, meetings and workshops on what the administration would be proposing before we consider any changes to the code if this passes. Molliger.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. I guess I view this slightly differently. The effective date is January 2nd, 2027. When we went through the director confirmation process for human concerns, one of the justifications Corporation Council used for taking wide discretion in how they interpreted the law was the lack of an ordinance that gave specific guidance. So had they not taken that position on a different matter, I probably would have agreed with you. But because they've used that argument in the past, I would feel more comfortable if this passed in November that those body then put into ordinance prior to January 2nd, 2027 guidance so that they can't see absence from absent ordinance or guidance from the council that they can take a broad interpretation of the law and then use it to make discretionary changes to the budget. That's my only comment, but I think my position on the main motion is already pretty clear.

Chair.

Yes.

For my third and final.

Yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez for her third and second final.

I'm supportive of what you're saying and I agree. It's better to have things clear and so if this does pass, not committing a vote but I'm supportive of putting into code by resolution so that it is set until we come to something different. Mahalo chair.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. I guess we are about to call for the question, and Member Sugimura was not here for discussion. If you would like for me to hold off on recognizing you until after the vote, I'm happy to do so, but you gotta leave the room. If you would like to participate in the vote without having heard deliberations on the matter, I will happily recognize you now. But that's the options before you, Member Sugimura.

Okay, so can you repeat the motion?

So the motion on the floor is to recommend passage on first reading of Resolution 2689. There have been no proposed amendments to the bill that was transmitted from the administration.

Okay. And what did Corp Council say?

Corporation Council did not opine, but can I just ask? Yeah, nobody asked him for anything, but can I just ask that you confirm that this was signed to form a legality by Corporation Council?

I can confirm that it was signed as to formally be added, yes. Okay.

Question?

Chair Lee.

Yeah, I have a question for Director Milner. Normally, amendments, we just vote up or down, so if this measure passed and one of the departments needed to make a transfer of some kind, Is the method still the same where we just have an up or down vote or can we make changes to the request for the transfer?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair Lee. My understanding is that it would still remain an up or down vote based on language existing elsewhere in the charter.

Okay. So again, people need to understand the process and giving this flexibility, it just encourages less discipline on the part of the administration. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Any further discussion?

Roll call.

Okay, roll call, staff.

Chair, proceeding with the roll call votes, Council Member Cook. Aye. Council Member Johnson? Yes. Council Chair Alice Lee?

No.

Council Member Poulton?

I'm gonna call on a little, please.

Okay, Council Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Aye.

Council Member Sinensi? Aye. Council Member Sugimura?

No.

Committee Vice Chair Nohielani Uhuhajens?

Aye.

We'll come back to Council Member Paltin.

Okay, aye, but there's more lawyers looking at it than just one lawyer, right?

I don't know if we can debate while in voting.

All right, aye with reservations.

Committee Chair Betongen, no. Chair, that's five ayes, four nos. Motion passes. Wait. Oh, it's a 6-3, excuse me. 6-3, excuse me. Thank you.

So thank you members. Okay, so that concludes our first round of deliberation on all of the initial proposals. We will now return to the items that were deferred. We'll begin with resolutions 25215 relating to notice and conduct of public meetings and 25217 relating to the computation of time. At the June 2nd great meeting, the committee agreed to follow the office of the county clerk, or sorry, the committee allowed to agree to allow the office of the county clerk to combine these two resolutions. Both were considered housekeeping items and OCC was already planning to propose a CD1 version of Resolution 25215 to address the Department of Corporation Council's concerns about newspaper publication requirements in the wholly revised statutes. to ensure we're satisfying proper notice requirements. We will bring both items forward for discussion at the same time. I would therefore like to entertain a motion to reconsider resolutions 25 to 15 and 25 to 17. Okay, thank you. moved by member Rollins-Fernandez and seconded by member Uhu Hodgins. The note I was about to make, which I guess was for member Johnson and my benefit, is that since this was deferred at the June 2nd meeting and we weren't here, that neither of us is able to move for reconsideration. but I guess that's moot since it was done already by Member Rollins-Fernandez and Member Uwajins.

You're welcome again.

I guess that I just want that on the record so that when the other items that come up, which were deferred on June 2nd, that he and I cannot be the makers of those motions. Okay. Okay. So we now have on the have before us resolutions 25 to 15 and 25 to 17. Um, No, the two before us are 25215, Proposed Charter Amendment on the Notice and Conduct of Public Hearings, and 25217, Proposed Charter Amendment on the Computation of Time. Sorry, I didn't catch your question. Okay. So I wasn't here and didn't, I'd like to hear from the Office of the County Clerk and Corporation Council on these matters. So first I'll ask for comments on the reconsideration from our Clerk and Deputy Clerk, and then I'll look to Deputy Corporation Council Kolbe.

Thank you, Chair. So we did combine 25215 and 25217 i'm looking for it in granicus and i'm not finding it yet however so if it's if it hasn't been properly transmitted perhaps we could defer that and i can go make copies really quick staff did we receive a copy of the combined proposal so staff is saying we have not yet received that

Would you guys like us to circle back to this item so that we have an opportunity to distribute the written proposal? Okay.

Chair.

Yes, Member Rollins for next.

Did you wanna call the vote on the reconsideration?

I didn't realize I hadn't done that. Okay, so we have before us a motion on the floor to reconsider 215 and 217. I should probably dispense with that motion. All in favor of reconsideration, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay. That's nine ayes, zero noes. Motion passes. Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Okay, so we now have before us, I apologize, members, those two. but we do not have a transmitted copy of a combined resolution with those two proposals. Can I ask for a two minute recess so that I can get myself organized and we can potentially either get that distributed or we can move on to the next item while we make copies of the proposal? before we take that recess? Yes.

Okay, so that you can consult with staff during the recess in case you don't have the answer to my question. So we approved reconsideration on two separate motions. Now we need to dispense with those separate motions, but we're going to take up a combined bill. So would the preference of the chair be to withdraw those motions to clear the table? And then that's what you can confer with staff if you don't have that answer. Because there's two motions that we reconsidered because they weren't originally combined, yeah.

Yes, I will confer with staff during the recess and then get an answer to you.

Sounds good.

Thank you. So it's now 1053. Let's come back at 1058. So five minutes. And we will. Sorry, five minutes. 1058. Thank you. Thank you members can the great committee meeting please reconvene the time is now 1109 a.m. So apologies it took I underestimated how long it would take to receive and then print the combined proposal but it is now being distributed for your consideration. We have before us two resolutions 25 to 15 and 25 to 17 chairs recommendation would be to if we are in favor of considering a combined one to replace one of the two resolutions and then file the other but before we take any action to that effect. I'd like to hear from the clerks and from Corporation Council on the proposed amendment that they now created. So, Deputy Clerk, Deputy Clerk, would you please provide remarks on your resolution 25215 CD1?

Thank you very much, Chair. So the CD1 version combines 25-215 and 25-217, and also addressed a concern raised by the budget director as far as the computation of time, which is the proposed new section 1318, that's the bottom of page six. of the document just handed out. And so that says except as to deadlines set on specific dates or as established in Article 9, the time in which any act is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last unless it's a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday in which event the period runs until 4.30 p.m. on the next business day. So that was one of the concerns. Member Paulton also brought up using the phrase in compliance with state law as necessary, so those changes were implemented. And other than that, we hope that this is a more of a housekeeping type of amendment. You know, we talked about earlier that publication in a newspaper is becoming increasingly problematic. It slows down the responsiveness of council, you know, since you're limited to your meeting dates by the time that it takes us to, it basically adds another week. So it inhibits your ability to respond very quickly on things that do require currently publication in the newspaper. So it's simply the flexibility there that we're looking for and also the recognition that this is a Sunshine Law body and most of your... All of your Sunshine Law meetings have to comply with state law. If there are public hearing requirements in state law, such as the fuel tax and the vehicle weight tax, those do require public hearings, and those notices would continue to be published in the paper in accordance with state law. So those are the only comments we have right now, Chair. Thanks.

Thank you, Deputy Clerk. Deputy Corporation Counsel.

Thank you, Chair. Well, I'll start with the section related to the changes in 13-18, the computation of time. I don't have any concerns about that. So to the extent that that language is approved by the budget director for certain items, that's great. It makes this somewhat compound in terms of a resolution. I don't know that it's such that it can't be clear on what is being proposed. I have previously addressed this committee related to my concerns that the resolution has changed by removing references to publications in newspapers of general circulation. is in conflict with HRS statutes 1-28.5, which is general for any time public notice and publication is required. And then 46-2, which is within the chapter related to the county and counties and how they're organized and operate. And that is much more specific to HRS. the publication or advising of ordinances, amendments, resolutions and bills. I think that the idea that we can simplify the process and provide some flexibility by taking that language out and just replacing it with something like in accordance with law isn't technically wrong, but it might be kind of in conflict with what the point of this is, which is to kind of put the public on notice that things are happening and the government's taking actions. If passed the way that it is, it would change the publication of a number of budget actions in chapters or sections 9-4 and 9-8. And I think that's just going to, if to be honest, going to be a little bit confusing for the public. I would note that I think part of the reason this was intended was that there was a legislative act to try and amend one dash 28.5 to modernize it and allow for digital notifications, but that didn't happen. So as we sit here today the, the statute says what it says. So I have concerns and wouldn't be in support of this on that legal basis that it's in conflict with state law. I do notice that if this is a sunshine board and we have, the county council has to comply with the sunshine notice requirements, Uh, I think it does. I, and I, I don't think that, uh, the provisions in 92 dash seven, the notice section, um, satisfied the requirements for publication and as required under the statutes. So it can't really be a substitute. I can't think, and I don't believe this is really just a housekeeping matter. Um, a couple other things to consider. I know this is a lot, but a couple other things to consider, uh, is that, uh, publication by notice is required. Um, whenever a quote government agency is required to give public notice or to publish notice, and then they provide the methods. Uh, there are things that our County does at the planning commissions. Um, as you've indicated, some of the tax provisions, that require public hearings. And public hearings and meetings are not synonymous. And I think an earlier version, the one that was first presented, used the word synonymous. But meetings cover a lot of territory. A lot of things can happen. There can be public testimony. But public hearings... in slight contrast, are things that are required to allow for public input. And so I also think it's problematic to replace all references to public hearing. But in any event, if this body decides that it wants to replace public hearing with meeting in anticipation that later on the state law is gonna change, I would make a suggestion on the actual ballot initiative So where it says affirm that county meetings must comply with state law, you could as an alternative say that the county shall comply with all public notice requirements under state law or state law public notice requirements. And that might get you some flexibility, but also make it clear to the voters that what we're talking about is changes in the notice for public actions. That's about it. I can ask your questions as they come.

Thank you, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Okay, so we have before us those two resolutions. Is there anybody who would like to make a motion to the effect of replacing 25 to 15 with the CD1 version that was just distributed? Motion made by Member Sugimura. Is there a second? Seconded by Member Uhuhajins. Okay, so now that we have this before us, is there... I'll start with... Yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Will you please repeat the motion?

Okay so we had before us resolution 25 to 15 and resolution 25 to 17 my recommendation when we came back from recess was to replace one of those with the combined version of the two which is now 25 to 15 CD one so that's the motion before us.

Okay.

Yes, but I didn't include that when I was trying to figure out how to proceed. So we would have to take that up separately. So if replacing 25215 with the CD1 version does pass, then the next action would be to file 25217. Because they're now combined, yeah, so it would be redundant.

You combine the two motions?

The two resolutions, because the resolution... No, but there's two motions. No, the resolution that we took for reconsideration was to bring both... before us. My understanding from staff was that because it was deferred rather than voted for or against, that we could bring both up at the same time and then replace one. We wouldn't need to have two different motions.

Oh, if they were both deferred, then we didn't need a reconsideration. We could have just brought them back up. Okay, here we are.

But we did. And so now the recommendation to proceed is to replace 25215 with a CD1 version that is a combination of the two.

All right, that satisfies my question. Can we call on budget director to opine on the section that was amended to address the concern she brought up at the last meeting?

Sure, we can do that. And then after we hear from budget director, I'd like to offer the members an opportunity to have their rounds of questions.

Great.

But we'll take opening remarks from budget director and then we'll open up the floor for the members. Director Milner.

Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo, Council Member Rollins-Fernandez. Yeah, so the language that I received says, except as to deadlines set on specific dates or as established in Article 9. So I think the only thing I would request the body to consider is instead of saying Article 9, say Section 4-3.3, because that's where the deadline language is. It's not in Article 9. So that's one option. Or instead of establishing Article 9, it could be bills passed by the council in accordance with Sections 9-5 and 9-6. Either of those, I think, would serve the purpose of us not running up against that June 30th date. But that would just be my recommendation because the deadline itself isn't actually set in Article 9. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, budget director. All right, so we've now had opening comments from the clerks, corporation council, and the budget director. We can start deliberations on the matter. I'll go three minutes for this first round. As the maker of the motion, Member Sugimura, would you like to kick us off?

It sure sounds like Corp Council has lots of objections, and being our legal opinion, you're recommending for the scrutiny or recommending?

My review of this is as to form and legality and the concerns I have are that it's in conflict with state law as amended. And so... I'm recommending that it not be approved for inclusion on the ballot.

Okay, thank you.

No more. As written. As written.

Thank you, Member Sugimura. Member Paltin.

I'll move to make the amendments suggested by Corporation Counsel Colby, if he can repeat the verbiage.

Deputy Corporation Council.

As related to the ballot question.

You had a bunch. For form and legality, what you're saying, to make it be legal form, you had some suggestions. I'm sorry, I didn't write them all down.

One suggestion was to not replace... public hearing with the word meeting.

Okay, I move to make that amendment as well as the one about conforming with state law that you said, if you can repeat that verbiage as well.

Sure, I'll just read the whole thing. In paragraph four, in the quotation section, I would start where it says affirm, and I would say affirm that county meetings must comply with publication and notice requirements in state law.

I'll also include that in my motion.

I'll second. And then, I guess while you're at it, Member Paulton, did you want to include the recommendation from the budget director?

Yes, I would. Thank you.

Director Milner, can you please restate for the record your recommendation for... She had two recommendations. Oh, she did?

Maybe we can take that up separately.

Oh, no, she just popped up.

Yeah, there was two. She said you can either exempt Section 4-3.3 or 9.5 or 9.6.

There was two options. So I guess, Director Milner, do you have a preference since we're taking up amendments to this?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. If you want to keep the as established, then I would say as established in Section 4-3.3.

That's the one. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Milner. Okay, so Member Paulton moved to amend CD1. Let's see if I captured this all. I know that we were going to keep the public hearing language, that we would replace the verbiage on conforming with state law to what Deputy Director Colby stated, and then from Director Milner, changing the reference from Section 9-4 to 4-7. 3.3, I think it was? Something to that effect. Okay, so everybody's clear. We have a motion on the floor made by Member Paulton. Was it seconded by Member Rollins-Fernandez? Okay, I just said Member Rollins-Fernandez, so. Well, then I'm gonna go with. If you're gonna put me in that spot, Member Rollins-Fernandez, then it's gonna be Member Johnson.

Chair, chair.

Yes, Chair Lee.

Since we heard from Corp Council, Deputy Corp Council, can we hear from the County Clerk on this, the amendments?

Yes, Chair. I just wanna make sure that the motion on the floor is clear before we deliberate on the matter. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor made by Member Paulton, seconded by Member Johnson, since I like him more. And I guess- More than Member Rollins for that. More than, period. So we're now in deliberation. We have a request from Chair Lee to hear from the clerks since they were the drafters of this CD1 version. Clerks?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chair Lee. In general, I think that our purpose was really to acknowledge that most of your work is done in accordance with Sunshine Law. OIP has opined that publication in the newspaper under that Section 128.5 is not required for Sunshine Law meetings. So that was our intent. Honestly, I'm not sure that this proposal needs to be considered any further if if really what we're doing is keeping it the same. So we're not changing public hearings to meetings. So that's really the bulk of this amendment. So honestly, I would just say, why don't we just go ahead and not consider either one of these proposals?

And they won't change.

Member Paulton.

Thank you, as a maker of the motion, I'll enter in my discussion. I do think there is some validity to, I think what the second one that, um, deputy court counsel Colby mentioned was if state law changes, then we can change it. So that I feel like is worthwhile. Is that not worthwhile enough for you guys? Cause I mean, we can do an HF package or something like that. Um, and appeal to the senators and representatives of our county that everybody knows we don't have easy access to newspapers anymore. So I mean, is that not worth it? You'd rather still file it? I'm cool to file it, but I also wouldn't mind to try and change state law, but maybe we can try to change state law first. I don't know, but if state law changes and with the charter clear, we can just go straight into it.

Thank you, Chair. Member Paulton, I think that your point is very well taken. And in the last legislative session, there were a couple of, I think at least a couple of bills to amend that notice in a newspaper for public hearings requirement. Just in general notice for meetings of any type, not having to be in a newspaper. So we're gonna continue absolutely focusing on that as much as we can. And if HSAC can come to bear on that issue, that'd be great.

So to clarify, do we still need to combine it? Was one of them was the public hearing public meeting one and the other one was the notice?

The computation of time. So basically eliminating weekends and holidays with charter deadlines. I it's, it's completely up to you folks if you think that warrants a charter amendment. But in terms of if, if we're not going to change public hearings to meetings, then cut that whole part out. Yeah. I just honestly, I don't see, you know, why go ahead with, with any of those other, because the other changes are really many, they're more language.

But the media part keeps that because it's worthwhile because we can work on the state.

I mean the deadline part, just that one section.

and the publications, like if it's in compliant, what was the word again, Mr. Deputy Colby?

No.

shall conform with state law. So I mean, it is a hardship to get a publication of daily circulation in this county because it doesn't, and we have not a great relationship with Star Advertiser apparently, and it's expensive. So I mean, this would clear the way if the state changes their law from that whole thing, or we could wait another, two to 10 years or indefinitely if you'd like, but I feel like that part is worthwhile to not file the whole thing, but I'm hoping if somebody else wants to make a motion to cut out the public hearing public meeting part, I feel like I've done enough work on this one today. I'll spread the wealth.

Thank You member Paulton yes by show of hands is there anybody who wants has questions or comments because I can go down the line but I don't know if there's that much debate on the amendment before us I think most more of the discussions on the general combined package remember who Hodgins so if that's the case which okay

then we're basically getting rid of the original 25, 215, and we're now kind of back to 217.

Yeah, so if we reject CD1, then we would have both proposals before us. This is a combined version of the two.

Yes.

Correct.

So is that then what we're picking up?

Yeah, so if the motion before us, or I guess the motion is to amend, so we would dispense with the amendments, then we would go back to the main motion. If that fails, then back before us would be the two separate resolutions.

Okay, and then when the time comes, we can make the changes that we discussed for the CD1 version for the sections related to budget timeline in the 217?

Yes, that is my understanding.

Okay, cool.

I'd like to follow that plan of action. And if there is no objection from whoever seconded, um, whether they're a favorite of anyone or not, uh, I'll withdraw my motion.

Okay. Before you do though, I would like to question, uh, so, uh, deputy corporation council, Can you re-explain your objection to changing public hearing to meeting? Because my reading was that meeting is an umbrella term under which a public hearing would fall and so that it wouldn't be a conflict. But you had a specific objection and I'd like to better understand it.

Uh, sure chair. Uh, I don't believe that a meeting in a public hearing are synonymous. I think that a public hearing, you can have a public hearing portion in a meeting. Um, it's that there are certain things like for instance, hearings on SMA app, uh, permit applications, uh, or, um, certain types of land use changes that require a public hearing. That's the language that they use. They call it a public hearing. And I think if we just go through the whole thing with the intent to call everything a meeting, then the logic is that we can meet our notice requirements because a meeting has to comply with Sunshine Law 92-7. And I think that that's where we get into trouble because they're not the same thing. And we would then need to go in, for instance, to the Maui County Code 19.510. And every time they talk about the requirements for public notice and everything, we'd have to change all of those.

Okay, so I think I'm in agreement that a public hearing and a meeting are not the same thing But my interpretation of meeting was that it is a broader term so it would be an umbrella one under which Public hearing would fall and in which case then the more specific requirements for a public hearing could still apply to those but the More general requirements for others could still move forward under the proposal before us. Is that not your interpretation?

I

You know, I can't point to any court case that says that. I think that the terms, I agree with you generally that that's the commonly understood concept that a meeting is a little bit broader and a public hearing is a little more due process oriented and is required in certain circumstances by laws, ordinances, rules, et cetera. But I can't point to anything that says that, you know, Like we look at statutes and then ordinances and as a hierarchy No, I I can't I can't point to that Okay Okay.

Yes member Rollins Fernandez.

Are you able to point to that definition of your understanding of a meeting?

No, I was going by commonly understood definitions. It's not defined in the Charter I

Yeah, and it's in HRS section 92, hearing does appear 24 times, but no definition.

Correct. Okay, so I guess given the conversation that we now have, Member Paltin was willing to withdraw her motion to amend. I would like to follow that train of thought withdraw the motion to amend CD1. I actually think we should probably, do I need to do anything to make that happen?

Or is her making that offer enough? Sorry Chair, I think we'll have Peter clarify because also I think we need to go back and make sure we had a main motion at the beginning.

Yes chair not to complicate things more, but I think we didn't have a main motion to Recommend passage on first reading I feel the motion on the floor is to recommend combining 215 Chair I don't think we had a main motion to recommend passage I

We do have a main motion.

There is.

After the reconsideration, we have two main motions. The motion to amend is the motion to combine. So the main motion is actually two motions because of the reconsideration to pass 215 and 217. And so that's why my recommendation was to withdraw everything, to clear everything up, because then this is what I knew would happen.

Yeah. So I... I agree with the recommendation, but I think my understanding was slightly different. So we had resolutions 215 and 217 before us. I actually don't remember making a motion to pass one or the other. I remember making a motion to replace 215 with the CD1 version.

Chair, because we made a motion to reconsider deferral.

Yeah, exactly. So there was never a motion to pass on first reading, which is I think what Mr. Hanano is getting at. this is getting a little complicated for me i'm getting lost in our procedures so mr hanano was your recommendation to back up clear the and then recommend passage on first reading 25 to 15 so that we would all be of the same understanding as to where we are um remember paulton was willing to withdraw her her amendment that i think in the dispense of the main motion to uh replace but I'm going to look to you for help on where to go for this.

Yes, I think because we didn't have a main motion to recommend passage of either resolutions, we need at least one. And I think it's going to be under resolution 25-215 since that seems like the more complex one. And then once we get that, then there can be a motion to replace by combining the two.

or to keep them separate and amend as needed. Okay, so members, can I ask, I don't know what the steps we gotta take to get there is, but yeah, can I ask for a recess?

Oh, well, let's let me and Gabe withdraw and then Yuki withdraw and then we'll start. Start new. Chair?

Yes, Chair Lee.

After we clear the deck, can we just take a lunch break? Okay. I hate to rush this vote, you know.

No, no, no, I agree. So my hope was to, I know members of this body have a conflict at noon, so my hope was to break shortly before then anyway. If the members are open, we can take a lunch break slightly earlier. Let's dispense of the motions before us, and then we can discuss taking a recess afterwards.

Fine.

Staff okay, so if they're willing to withdraw I don't need to do anything right remember Paulton was the maker of the amendment I would draw my second and and and Then the main motion that was before us was made by member Sugimura or are you willing to withdraw this? Yes, and then the second ter was member cook Okay, so that is withdrawn. We are now at square one. Okay, so let's discuss Let's discuss the plan for the rest of the day. Then we have six resolutions that needed to be reconsidered. We have before us two of them. Um, and we have through four 30. So yes, member Rollins Fernandez.

Sure, sorry. So one of the things we talked about at the very first meeting that you were not there was that we didn't want to have 15 charter amendment proposals on the ballot. I know you said we have six that were deferred.

Correct. So we will go through all the deferrals and then we would prioritize if needed. I think I made in my opening remarks that if the body feels that we would overwhelm the electorate by putting forth too many questions then we would um prioritize at that point because i think there was a sunshine law issue with taking a straw poll for which ones members had preferences for up front but once we go through everything then we can decide which ones we want to prioritize and what might be more appropriate to take up at a later date okay yeah and by that i mean like a future election because it would have to go on the ballot chat

So four were either withdrawn, four resolutions were either withdrawn or not passed, or recommend not passage, and then we potentially will combine two, and that would leave us with nine, so just,

for everybody's situational awareness.

While we're during lunch to start thinking about, because if all the bills that resolves we deferred or passed already are put on the ballot, there will be nine plus the one that we already approved to be on the ballot.

Yes.

And I can read those if you want, because I wrote them down.

I don't know if we need to at this point, because they were stated at the beginning of the meeting and we, just passed the two budget ones. Um, so that's five for today. Um, because if you really feel the need to reiterate what those are, great, but otherwise, I'd like to get the pleasure of the body for the game plan for the rest of the day. So if we take a lunch break now, I know some of you had meetings scheduled at noon in anticipation of that being our regularly scheduled break. Are the conflicts all the way up until 1.30? Would you guys be able to come back at, say, 1?

Chair on the side, I'd like to leave at four if that's okay.

We will do our best. My conflict is to 115. Okay. Does anybody have a preference of coming back at 115? So if we were to break at 1145 and come back at 115, it's still our normal scheduled duration, but at a slightly different time.

I'll be on the road, but I'll listen in. There might be sections where I have terrible service because I live in the country, but I'll be listening. Understood. Thank you.

I have no conflict chair and I'm staying for a council meeting tomorrow. So, I mean, not encouraging us to go into the night, but I'm just saying that I'm here to finish the work.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Okay. So I think that's a sound game plan. Let's recess now and then reconvene at 1.15. You know, those who are able to join us here in person, great. If you are on the road at that time, we'll do our best to make accommodations. Okay, so the time is now 11.44. This meeting will be in recess until 1.15. Thank you, members. Good afternoon, members. For the great committee meeting, please come back to order. It is now 1.20 p.m. Okay, so we have before us resolution 25-215 and resolution 25-217. My hope is to very quickly get through these two. And then given that we only have three hours left of our workday, I'll look to the members for guidance on what resolutions we should reconsider. If we don't have to take up all of them, I'd really like to not have to. And then when we get through reconsideration, we can decide if we are above what we feel is comfortable putting forth on the ballot. So start to think about which ones you really want to take up of the remaining proposals that need to be reconsidered. So the resolutions before us were both submitted to us by the clerks, you know, their initial proposal at the beginning of this meeting was to combine the two of them. It doesn't sound like there's appetite for that from this body. So clerks, can I ask if you have a preference on how to proceed with the resolutions 25 to 15 and resolution 25 to 17?

Yes, thank you, Chair. So our recommendation would be to file 25215, and the reason is with the changes that were recommended by Corporation Counsel and Peter Hanano, your OCS attorney, it really kind of takes the meat out of 215, so there would be no true purpose for introducing it at this point. And over the break... I submitted to the committee a CD1 version of 217, which incorporates the budget director's changes that she recommended regarding section 4-3.3. So that's in the CD1 version, and I did run it by the budget director, so she is okay with that version.

Thank you, clerks. Okay, so members, if Resolution 25-215 was requested by the clerks and they are now recommending filing, is there any objection to me doing so? So ordered. So Resolution 25-215, yes.

Chair, I see Member Uuhajins online if you want to.

Sorry, Member Uuhajins, did you have an objection to filing Resolution 25-215?

No, I don't, Chair. I was agreeing with you by shaking my head, saying no objections.

Okay. And since you are calling in remotely, can I ask you and Member Sinensi to do your Sunshine Law disclaimers?

Yes. I am in my husband's dirty car all by myself.

Thank you for those details, Member Uhuha-Jens. Are you going to go wash it for him? no i will not but thank you he'll appreciate that thought uh chair i'm here at my home office and i'm here by myself thank you members and nc okay so i think we just recommended filing of 25 to 15. um there were the cd1 version of sorry chair yes we'll do the motion and then the vote to file oh i cannot do it without objection i Okay, it sounds like a motion to file is needed. So we have a motion from Member Rollins-Fernandez, second by Member Sugimura. Any discussion on the filing? Seeing none, all in favor of filing Resolution 25215, please raise your hand and say aye. All opposed, nay. Thank you, Chair. That's nine ayes, zero noes. Motion passes. Thank you, staff. OK, so now we have resolution 25217. Can I have a motion from somebody who was here on the 2nd to replace it with the CD1 version that was just distributed? So somebody besides me and Gabe. Member Cook, seconded by Member Sugimura. So we have before us the CD1 version of 25217. OCS staff did recommend that if we adopt this, that there be two amendments we consider. One to the first item under be it resolved they would prefer that the language be amended to the following. That in accordance with section 14-11-1, revised charter of the County of Maui in 1983 as amended, it proposes that the charter article 13 on general provisions be amended by adding a new section to read as follows, with new material underscored. Staff, since this is coming from you, can I ask you to explain?

Chair.

Yes.

What was the motion on the floor?

The motion is to pass to replace 25217 with 25217 CD1. Now staff is requesting we further amend resolution 25217 CD1. And that's the main motion? The main motion is to replace it with CD1. The motion needs to be passed. I see, okay. So can I ask for a motion to pass on first reading 25 to 17? Member Sugimura, seconded by Member Cook. Okay, now I need a motion to amend it by replacing it with the CD1 version that was just distributed. I'll go with Member Cook and then Member Sugimura since that's the order I took it up last time. Now, staff would like us to further amend it in two ways. Staff, can I ask you to explain those two requested amendments?

Thank you, Chair, and apologies, let me bring up my notes. So one amendment that we're requesting is to amend the first be it resolved clause to amend the prefatory language to say the following, that in accordance with section 14-1, paren one, revised charter of the County of Maui 1983 as amended, It proposes that charter article 13 on general provisions be amended by adding a new section to read as follows with new material underscored. So it's just to make the prefatory language consistent with how we do other charter amendments.

So it's the first item under be it resolved. It's changing it so that it's consistent with the way that they wrote all the other resolutions for this ballot.

Chair, what is supposed to be underscored?

It doesn't currently say that. That's what staff is asking us to have it say.

And Chair, so if this is approved, we would also underscore the new section that's being inserted into the charter. So I think that's charter section 13-18.

And then staff, you wanted revisions to section six as well. Also, my understanding is to have it also conform with the way that the other resolutions were written.

Yes, Chair. So for this other amendment, it would be amending the six be resolved clause to say the following, that on approval by a majority of the voters voting on the proposed amendment and on official certification of the result, the amendment proposed in this resolution takes effect on January 1st, 2027. And it's to conform it, I guess, the prefatory language with how we do other chart amendments, but it would also make the timeframe consistent for when the amendments would take effect.

Did everybody get that? Is there an appetite to amend it to include the OCS recommendations? Okay, so I see a motion by Member Cook. Do we have a second? I would like to see it. Member Lee. So we have a motion on the floor to amend CD1 to conform those two provisions, be it Result 1 and be it Result 6, to the language that OCS had proposed for conformity with the way that they drafted the other proposals. For discussion, I hear Member Rollins-Fernandez asking to see the language. Is there a way that we can?

To see the amendments. Because I think, if I understand correctly, all of Section 13-18 would be underscored as it is in the original 25-217? All of it? That's correct, yes.

Because it's a new section that's being inserted.

Okay, and then in the whereas clause subsection six, after the word amendment in the last line, it would be on the proposed amendment on this reso what?

I'm sorry, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Oh, can you read it again? The Sixth Beat Resolve Clause? Yes. Okay, let me repeat the language we would be requesting. Okay. It would say that on approval by a majority of the voters voting on the proposed amendment and on official certification of the result, the amendment proposed in this resolution takes effect on January 1st, 2027. All right.

Okay, sure.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Clerk, since this is your proposal, do you have any objections to the requested amendments from OCS?

No, none at all.

Thank you. Okay, so we have before us a motion to amend. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That's nine ayes, zero noes. Motion passes. You're back on the motion to replace.

Okay, so we're back on the motion to replace 25217 with the CD1 version. Any further discussion? Yes, Member Rollins.

Mahalo, Chair. I will be voting in favor of this so that there's a final disposition position on this resolution, but this is not my top five. Mahalo, Chair.

Understood any further discussion on the motion to replace 25 17 with the cd1 version Seeing none all in favor. Please raise your hand and say aye aye all opposed nay Chair, that's nine eyes zero knows motion passes back to the main motion is amended So the main motion has amended to pass or it's recommend passage of resolution 25 to 17 as amended Any further discussion? Okay. You're raising your hands to vote. So all in favor say aye. All opposed nay. Chair, that's nine ayes, zero nos. Motion passes. Thank you members. Okay, so that's two of the six. Is that how many we had to reconsider? Okay. Um, in the interest of time, can I get a sense from the body? Are there any burning ones that you really want to take up? Um, Before I call on Member Rollins-Fernandez, I guess my reading from the body in the last meeting was that the INB and the vacancies were of interest to this body, but I'd love to hear from each of you, starting with Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Sure, mahalo, Chair. My top five is emergency appropriations, INB, processing of claims, board of ethics, and Hoy's model.

Okay.

You want me to give you the numbers? I have the numbers, I'm sorry. No, no, no, I guess I'm trying to get a sense of- Okay, my neighbor would like me to say the numbers.

Sure.

Okay, so reso 26-88, reso 26-93, reso 26-61, reso 95, and 85.

Okay, but I guess part of what I was trying to get at was we don't need to reconsider all of the ones that had been deferred. So I appreciate the top five, and that will be helpful when we prioritize ballot questions if we feel that we are over. What I'm really trying to get a sense of is which of the deferred proposals we still need to bring up for reconsideration. Yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

I think the only one of my five that would need to be taken up again because it was deferred was the claims one. Okay. 61, reso 26-61. Okay.

So claims.

And the INB, we deferred that one too.

Okay, any other burning ones that the body wants to take up for reconsideration?

The vacancy also has been deferred, but that wasn't my top five because I think there's a lot more work that needs to be done on it.

Understood. Chair Lee?

Yeah, you said there are about nine. Why don't you just list them so we can remember?

Okay, I don't have them organized quite so easily.

I have them, Chair, if you'd like help.

Sure, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Sure, okay. It's reso 25-216, and that's the one with, oh, you just filed that one. Oh, no, deadlines. We passed that one. Rezo 25-217, that was the computation of time, and we just passed that one right now. Rezo 26-61, and that's the processing of claims. Reso 26-11, council vacancy. Reso 26-85, it was Hoy's model and that one passed. the council vacancy was deferred. Reso 26-95, board of ethics was passed. Reso 26-93, repealing the INB was deferred. Reso 26-88, emergency appropriations, we just passed today. Reso 26-89, transfer of appropriations was also just passed today.

Chair Lee, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Of all of these, I'd probably consider maybe two or three as a priority.

Thank you. So I guess my reading of the body is that the ones that we really have strong feelings towards reconsidering our claims, the independent nomination board and the vacancy on the council is, is that generally correct? Am I, is there anybody who has a burning desire to take up any of the deferred amendments beyond those three? Okay, so let's start with the Independent Nomination Board, because I think we can move through that one pretty quickly. Members, we did receive a response from the administration just prior to the beginning of our meeting this morning. Um, that has been uploaded onto Granicus as number nine. Uh, if you have not had a chance to read through it, um, they do commit to adopting many of the, um, the recommendations from the Acosta Government Commission's report. But I did find one piece of their correspondence interesting that may impact this body's decision making. And I'd like to read it into the record. It's the last section, resolution 26-93, and it states, in your letter, you cite the cost of government commission, quote, is recommending the county retain the IMB because the board is a charter requirement. If this is the reason for retention, I recommend approving resolution 26-93 with one edit that I suggest on the following page. The purpose of resolution 26-93, as identified in the heading, is to simplify the appointment process for boards and commissions and dissolve the independent nomination board. As you are aware, the Administration Council continued to face challenges with recruiting enough candidates to serve on boards and commissions, leaving critical positions vacant and the boards and commissions unable to meet quorums. This amendment intends to alleviate those challenges, but may also inadvertently contribute to them due to ambiguity in the language. On page four of the resolution, the following language is added to the charter. Additional policies on the process for appointments to boards and commissions may be established by ordinance, and then this section with emphasis added by the administration. The policies may include a requirement that the mayor identify applicants and initiatives to recruit and vet applicants. So it sounds like the mayor is recommending that we eliminate the Independent Nomination Board with an amendment to the proposed resolution that was submitted by Member Rollins-Fernandez. You know, I think that would help our discussion moving forward, because I think the discussion had to do with eliminating the board or allowing reform to occur. If the administration has a preference, and at least my reading of this body was that there was a preference for dissolving as well, I'd be willing to entertain a motion to that effect at this time.

So moved.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, moved by Chair Lee, seconded by Member Sugimura.

Chair, just for clarification, is this to reconsider the previous deferral?

Yeah, okay. So the order of operations would be reconsider, deferral, and then move to adopt. Is that correct, Mr. Hanano?

It would be a move to recommend passage on first reading.

Okay, so I guess first we need to move to reconsider.

Oh yeah, reconsider.

Yeah, no, we do need that motion. I skipped over it, so I guess we'll take that motion.

No, we don't, but we can. Yeah, I didn't think we needed it either, but let's do it so we can just move forward. It's up to you.

Well, if we don't need it, then I'd rather skip over it. So we have then before us the motion to recommend passage.

The chair will entertain a motion to pass on first reading.

Okay, and am I able to utilize the motion made by Chair Lee and seconded by Member Sugimura? Do I need to go through this again? Corporation Council.

Chair, I just had one procedural issue and that's that I see a potential change we need to make to 26-93. And I don't know if that needs to happen before you guys take the matter up for deliberation or not.

Try that again. I think he has a recommended amendment.

Is that the section 10 that you wanna bring up? Okay, so first we're gonna do the procedural thing and then we'll bring up discussion and then that's when we'll bring up the section 10.

Thank you. Understood, okay. So we have before us a motion to recommend on first reading resolution.

26-93 moved by Chair Lee, seconded by Member Sugimura.

Okay, thank you. So now that we're on discussion, Corporation Council.

Thank you, Chair. Section 10 to 13-2... DOES TWO THINGS. ONE THING IS IT ADDS IN LANGUAGE ABOUT ADDITIONAL POLICIES ON THE PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE. THAT LANGUAGE IS FINE. THE NEXT SENTENCE, POLICIES MAY INCLUDE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MAYOR IDENTIFY APPLICANTS AND INITIATIVES TO RECRUIT AND VET APPLICANTS COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. AND HERE'S THE REASON. THE OIP AND HRS 292 92F have recognized that unsuccessful applicants to certain boards and commissions have significant privacy interests. Now, there may be ways to work around that and provide a mechanism for them to be identified, but I don't think it needs to be in the charter. So my recommendation was that the second sentence that's underscored be taken out. The other suggested change is that section 10 pretty much says that all boards and commissions shall hold public hearings whenever required or deemed necessary and shall provide due notice to the public. That language has been kind of in the charter forever. I don't see a reason to need to bracket that out and remove that language. So my recommendation would be to leave it in.

Okay, so I caught the second part of that regarding the bracketed language in Section 10. Can you repeat the first one? Because that's the language that's coming down from the administration. So how do you recommend resolving the legal issue?

To resolve a legal issue, I think you can leave the first sentence in that starts with additional and ends with ordinance, and then just simply leave out the second sentence, the policies may include, et cetera, that one.

Okay. Can you refer to the section of the section 13 dash two and then read it as you would like it to, as you would like us to consider it?

Sure. It's 13 dash two section 10. and it would read, all boards and commissions shall hold public hearings whenever required or deemed necessary and shall provide due notice to the public by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. Additional policies on the process for appointments to boards and commissions may be established by ordinance.

Period, so just take out that last sentence from the proposal. Yes, that would be my recommendation. Okay, so did everybody understand that?

member Johnson and then I'll go to Charlie Thank You chair so Corporation Council you're basically saying that we want to protect the applicants privacy is that the reason why you want this out because remember this is a public committee would in a public forum I I don't understand that how they you know you're supposed to have what's the term Yeah, but there's an expectation of privacy, but you're applying for a public commission. What is the expectation?

I can only read from what the OIP said, and that was that And I want to distinguish between nominees and applicants. So if somebody applies or if somebody is nominated and then considered by you guys, they wouldn't have the same protection. So it says, uh, we found that applicants not nominated to fill a vacancy, you have a significant privacy interest in their application for a position on a border commission. and that the disclosure of these unsuccessful applicants identities would not shed significant light upon the actions of the governor in selecting the appointee. Thus, we could find no public interest in the disclosure of this information and concluded that such a disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under Section 92F13, Parent 1, Hawaii Revised Statutes. And this is to distinguish unsuccessful applicants from people who there is a public interest, for instance, nominee of a judge, nominee of a person to serve on the Board of Ethics. I think under those circumstances, the significant privacy interest would be outweighed by the public's right to know.

That's very lawyerly of you, but I just feel like it's not very, what are they expecting? There's no expectation of privacy when you come before a public commission, but if that's the difference between a nomination and applicant, I hear where you're coming from, but wow, that's one way to look at it.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Before I recognize, so I said I would call on Chair Lee next, but it has been brought to my attention that had I kept reading the letter from the administration that the mayor would have made a similar point and that I just didn't go far enough to bring that to the public light. So I want to acknowledge that mistake on my behalf. I saw Chair Lee's hand next and then Member Sugimura.

I just wanted to ask Mr. Colby why leave that second sentence out? He clearly says that we have the opportunity to make changes by ordinance. Not changes, but...

Right, I think that sentence provides you with all the flexibility that you would need as the County Council to establish what information needs to be and if there was an intent to change the application process to put people on notice that their information and identifications would be public, then that may be something you could do. I just don't.

And that's the reason for deleting the second sentence?

the second, the last sentence of that paragraph. Not the second sentence, yeah.

All right, thank you.

Okay, and so Member Sugimura followed by Member Palten.

So I believe going through this INB, that's the exact problem that we were being told. difficulties of the applicants that their privacy had to be protected. So are you saying then by eliminating that last sentence then we do not have to worry about that?

I, I, so there's three sentences here. The first one is we've already talked about and that has to do with what boards and commissions do. The second sentence allows you guys by ordinance, um, to set, uh, policies. Um, but the third sentence, uh, specifically identifies, uh, having the mayor identify applicants. And I think that that language, it's not necessary because if you're allowed to do things by ordinance, then we could take that up as appropriate without having it in the charter. That's all I'm saying. And because the OIP has, at least in some circumstances, found applicants to have this privacy interest, we shouldn't put it in there if we don't have to. That's my suggestion.

Okay, thank you.

Member Paulton.

Thank you for the redacted part or the bracketed part that you wanted put back in. Can we go back to your language about the state's process on due notice to the public by publication in newspaper of general circulation in the county and say like in accordance with state law because we're trying to, we don't have a great newspaper of general circulation in this county.

General circulation.

I think I took the piece of paper that I wrote all that stuff down out of my folder when we took our break. No. But the language, I mean, you could do something like that, I think. In essence, I know what you're saying.

Legislative intent. Is that okay?

Fine by me, but I guess I would want us to give Steph some guidance on how that language should be then written.

Rewind the tape. I have it.

Member Rollins-Fernandez, can you read back for us how we addressed this earlier?

Conforming with state law.

Conforming with state law.

Conforming with notice requirements under state law.

And shall provide due notice conforming with state law.

State requirement notice.

Is that what I said? Notice?

I said I wrote it down.

Okay. I have it here. Okay. Comply with publication of notice requirements under state law.

Okay.

Steph, did you get that?

It would be all boards and commissions shall hold public hearings whenever required or, and then that section you just read?

or deemed necessary and shall provide due notice to the public.

In conformance.

In conformance with the requirements of state law.

Public notice requirements of state law.

In conformance with the public notice requirements of state law. That's my motion. Okay.

That's my preference. Okay. Since member Paulton.

I have it written. I think if we're gonna take up that motion.

So the motion on the floor was to pass.

Recommend passage on first reading 26-93.

26-93. There's no motion to amend at this point, right? We were just discussing.

So I can make the motion for all the things one time.

Sure. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

After we power discussion.

Okay. Would you like to offer the motion to amend at this point?

After we pile all of our discussion. I wrote it down. So I can include that to strike the last sentence, to restore the language, to add the... So I can make all that motion one time.

Okay. I don't see anybody else looking to comment or question on the main motion at this point. So if you would like to offer that amendment, I think this would be an opportune time.

Okay, I move to amend section 10 on page four by restoring, by removing the back brackets around all boards and commissions that the circulation in the county. So we would remove the brackets, which would restore that language. Then to that first sentence, it would read, all boards and commissions shall hold public hearings whenever required or deemed necessary and shall provide due notice in conformance with public notice in state law.

Deputy Corporation Counsel, I think she's looking to you for acknowledgement or agreement that that is what you had recommended.

Yes, with one exception. Right after the word notice, I think requirements.

Notice requirements, sorry.

In state law. And then yes.

Okay, notice requirements in state law. Further, to strike the last sentence that's underscored, strike the policies may include a requirement that the mayor identify applicants and initiatives to recruit and vet applicants. And that is my motion to get a second.

Thank you, Member Ron Fernandez. Can I get a second? I don't know if you and I can.

You can. Why would you not be able to?

Oh, no, we were here for this one. Sorry, we weren't here for the June 2nd one.

You just couldn't make the motion for reconsideration.

Oh, okay. So then moved by Member Rollins-Fernandez, seconded by Member Johnson. Any discussion? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Okay, so mahalo for taking this one up. Okay, so in Section 16 that is being stricken from the charter, or is being proposed to be stricken, it says any applicant for nomination shall not be public. So that is being removed, which would help with what Member Johnson was explaining about wanting that transparency and that when drafting the legislation, I worked with OCS to put something stronger so that it wouldn't just be silent. So I'm removing the prohibition or any applicant for nomination shall not be public. So removing that and then taking a step further and saying that there will be an expectation that applicants the list will be available to the public. And that can be added to the application form that would inform anyone applying to a Boarding Commission that their names would not be private. and then they would be waiving that right to privacy or expectation to privacy. And that was something I spoke with Deputy Corp Counsel Colby about on Tuesday about whether the fact pattern that OIP opined on included that consideration of waiving that right to privacy in an application. And I think he said no, but I can ask him.

Deputy Corporation Council.

Without looking at exactly what you guys are going to propose in an ordinance, I can't say what exactly, but certainly some information, it's a balancing test. Significant privacy interest versus the rights to know. So we always redact some information and don't provide it to the public in an application. And I think if you put language into an application form, we could go through that analysis and, you know, but if it's a code provision and it's objected to, we can fix it.

And so, I mean, that doesn't say that in the charter. It was just, that's what this section, additional policies on the process for appointments to boards and commissions may be established by ordinance means that we could clarify that process and weigh that privacy interests and it would just be the name. Like it wouldn't be their contact information and all that stuff, their birth dates, their social security numbers. It wouldn't be that. But yeah, so that that's the purpose of that section while for me allowing me to make the motion I saw my neighbor with his hand up Neighbor put your hand up.

Yeah. Thank you. I just for for my clarification an Applicant there's ten people who apply their names are not private Three people are selected their nominees The seven people who were not selected have total privacy, just their name. They don't have their professions and all the other stuff, the criteria. The three actual nominees who would be coming before us or before a group to be assessed would have full disclosure, so that you could make a thorough assessment of their suitability and any potential conflicts. But the seven people who were initially asked and volunteered and were interviewed by the Blue Ribbon Committee or whoever, their information that was given to them would be private. Is that what we're talking about?

Except for the name you said. Except for the name. Yeah, except for the names.

I'm saying that their information would be disclosed to the Blue Remed Committee or the IMB because they have to know that. But if they don't make the cut for whatever reason, they won't, because that's one of the impediments for people willing to volunteer. It's like, yes, indeed, I'm gonna volunteer, so of course I'll do that. But if I'm not selected, I'm not gonna go through all that. But you can keep all the information, because I do want to serve. So I just want to see if we're on the same page with that, because I think that lack of disclosure was maybe being a little misunderstood.

Yes, if I understand you correctly, the answer is yes. And that would be something that we would further delve deeper into when we introduce a bill and is not affected by this particular, this just wouldn't prohibit us from doing that.

Okay, does that meet with Mr. Johnson's interpretation?

Yeah, I'm following along and it sounds like exactly where we wanna go with this.

you chair for indulging me thank you neighbor with your hand up any additional discussion on the motion to amend seeing none all in favor oh you have additional discussion okay so all in favor of the motion to amend please raise your hand and say aye aye opposed

Chair, I see eight ayes, zero noes. And Member Uhajan's excused. Motion passes.

Okay, so back to the main motion as amended. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. So Section 5 in this proposal is also being proposed to be amended by the... Let's see, Board of Ethics Resol, which is Resol 26-95. And so we need to make sure that if both proposals pass, that Section 5 in this resolution is consistent with Section 5 in the Board of Ethics resolution.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. My understanding was that if they both passed, that that would occur. But I guess I would defer to Mr. Hanano, our Corporation Counsel on the matter. So the question, gentlemen, before us is, if both this proposal passes and the proposal to allow for the Board of Ethics to have that second consecutive term passed, that section five will automatically be adjusted.

Yes, I think what happens is the, and I don't know, maybe OCC has a better understanding of how this works, but the revisor of statutes has to merge it together to, you know, turn into one section that encompasses both amendments. Because I don't think we can like incorporate it and put it on the ballot. It has to be considered separately. and then once it, if it passes, because one may pass, one may not, if they both pass, then I think there needs to be some kind of adjustment.

And Chair, we did make a provision in the charter empowering the clerks to make housekeeping changes for us. Deputy Clerk.

Deputy Clerk.

Without looking at the language that we're talking about, I don't have those right in front of me, but yes, if both passed and they didn't conflict, then the language in both would be included in the new version of the charter.

Thank you very much. Member Palten.

Am I wrong in the reading of that number five that it is kind of housekeeping-ish? And so we could just...

Yes, so my proposal has housekeeping and I just wanted to make sure that the housekeeping in both were the same because when I look at it, there's a few differences which is not substantive but as much as possible for the housekeeping to be consistent.

I'm okay with consistency but if it's just housekeeping in this section, does it need to be there?

I would defer to our lawyers in the matter.

I can I think I can kind of make them as consistent as possible in a motion.

I mean it seems like based on my reading of it that it's just housekeeping and try to make the language in that section conform to the drafting requirements of Office of Council Services.

I guess my question is, if one is substantive, meaning that the proposal to allow for the Board of Ethics to have Consecutive terms, you know, that's like the whole point of that one and then in this one It's housekeeping should this committee choose to recommend both. Can we ask staff to? Revise this second one so that it's consistent with the first one After it gets passed out of committee so that it would be clean before it comes to full council Or is that something we have to wordsmith on the floor?

I think the word you're looking for is legislative intent. Can we legislative intent that?

I'm looking to Mr. Hanano and Mr. Colby on this one.

Yeah, I mean, if anything, it would be conforming 26-95 to match 26-93, which appears to be maybe like I said amendments to make it conform to OCS drafting standards as well as there may be some clarity amendments but I don't see any.

So that being the case my preference would be to move forward with the main motion and that if there are conflicts in between now and when it comes before us at full council that OCS help us to make sure that the two proposals are able to be worked together. Any further discussion on the main motion as amended? Okay, seeing none, all in favor of the main motion as amended, please raise your hand and say aye. All opposed, nay.

Chair, that's nine ayes, zero nos, motion passes.

Thank you, members. Okay, so that's the INB. The other two that I heard strong preferences for reconsideration are claims and the vacancy on a council. Is there a preference for which ones we take up first? Claims, okay. Can I have a motion to reconsider claims? Move by Member Sugimura. Second. Second from Member Rollins-Fernandez. Member Sugimura, would you like to speak to this one? Or would you like the introducers to speak to this one?

I think the introducers can, but we sure have talked about this. Please, clerks.

Okay, let me find my notes on this one.

I can introduce it if you want. It's just changing clerks to Corp Council. That's all it is. That's the whole amendment.

Chair, can I just really briefly, this is Tom Colby. Yes. Can I identify as resources on, if there's any debate on this, Mr. John Gores and Heather Andronikton and the risk manager, Lydia Toda.

No objections, Chair.

No objections. Okay, wait. I finally found my notes on this matter, and there is a little bit more to it than that. So I guess, members, for your consideration and to help with our discussion, I've transmitted the committee report and minutes to the Policy Economic Development and Agriculture Committee, or from the Policy Economic Development and Agriculture Committee. In 2018, that committee passed the charter amendment that would require claims to be filed with the Department of Corporation Council instead of the Office of the County Clerk. The proposal appeared on the 2018 ballot, but ultimately did not pass, receiving a 38.8% yes vote and 43.3% no votes. These results are also included in my transmittal. It's number five on Granicus. I also did want to recognize that corporation Council had additional resource personnel he wanted to have designated I did not see objections to them being designated so can acid those individuals please come down to the floor at this time Oh, that's what you were trying to tell me. See, you were mentioning chair. I thought you were trying to talk to me. I didn't realize you meant a physical chair. Okay, so I understand that this is a very spirited debate on the second. You know, Member Johnson and I were not here for that. And so I'd like to offer both the clerks and Corporation Council the ability to make remarks before we get into discussion. I'll give you each two minutes. For Corporation Council, I recognize that there's a lot of you. So I'll look to Mr. Colby to manage the time on that point. But just so that we can all be brought back. No. The clerks two minutes and corporation council two minutes not two minutes per body. That's in a chair Yes, it is two minutes per organization just to bring us back up to speed and to make any remarks That you think are pertinent for our consideration on this matter. I'll start with the clerks. I

Thank you, Chair. So to get us up to speed, we presented this because currently what happens is claimants come in and file with us. They believe that we are their point of contact and they are frustrated when we are not able to give them any type of information on status and so forth. So it would be more appropriate to have this at Corporation Council who has access to status and so forth as opposed to what's happening right now is we're calling down there, referring the people that come in and then trying to give them the information when they show back up. So we're just looking to put it in the department where it is actually handled similar to what Honolulu city and County does. They file their corporation council as well.

Thank you. All right, Corporation Counsel, Mr. Colby, I will defer to you on managing time for opening remarks in this matter.

Okay, just briefly, at the last meeting, I indicated that there was a conflict issue, and I'm gonna defer to Mr. Gores, who is a litigator, to explain that further.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the council. This is not just a claims issue, as it seems to be acutely phrased in the reso. There is a significant issue here. The filing or giving of the notice of claim is technically a jurisdictional act for purposes of a lawsuit. In other words, if it isn't done properly, if it isn't done timely, or if it isn't done at all, that lawsuit can be dismissed. Now, in the last six to eight months, I've had five lawsuits involving fact issues concerning the filing of the claim. If it comes to our office, it will become, our office becomes the witness and we can no longer be the advocate or the legal representative in the legal proceedings. that in turn will as much as you like or don't like will result in our coming here and requesting special counsel. Now that's not cheap. And given the fact I've had five in the last six to eight months, let's assume 100 grand of special counsel, that's a half million dollars. We have 10 litigators in our section. If each one of them has that, now we're up to $5 million for simply changing it to the corp counsel. Now, when we look at the HRS, the legislature has made it clear that they prefer to have a certain designated representative from the council be the recipient. You get to designate the person in the charter, but if you don't, the default is either the council chair or the clerk of the county. because they receive the filings, the important papers. It's the second most important duty the clerk has. All right?

Thank you, Mr. Gores. Okay, so I understand that there was some very lively debate the last time around, since member Johnson and I were not here for that.

Do you have me mistaken for someone else?

I don't know. My notes say that you weren't here for the first round of...

He wasn't physically here, but I think he was virtually here.

Oh. Yeah, so my notes said that you and I were not, and so I thought... I certainly remember this debate.

I was going to give you the opportunity to start your other question because you weren't here. Even so, it just doesn't mean that I can't bring it back up.

No, no, no. I guess my logic was that because you did not have the opportunity to ask questions, the first time around, I was going to give you first practice.

I remember this and I could see the clerk shaking their heads today. It shouldn't be about me, he being here or not. We should hear it from them.

If that wasn't it, I was just giving you first opportunity.

My opportunity to speak is to ask questions to the clerk. What say you, what we just heard from Corporation Counsel?

I have a lot to say about that. What the law says, because I am a litigation attorney as well, and was in court counsel handling claims.

So I guess we will start the questions and comments from the members. I started with Member Johnson. Can we do three minutes in this round? Staff, can you start the timer?

I'm sorry, what's the calculation? Three minutes, that's 27 minutes, and we have to adjourn at 4 p.m. Oh, I forgot it was 4. I don't know. What time are we adjourning?

No, no, there were members who had to leave at 4. You're right.

You can keep going. I'm not here at 4 because I've had enough of this talking.

I will keep my comments quick. So moving forward, clerks, what say you?

It's that it's dismissal of state law claims. So that is the precursor is that you must file a claim first. But I think really what is being missed here is that ultimately risk management handles it. So coming before this body and saying that we're making witnesses of the attorneys, is really just a red herring. You can have it accepted by risk management, which is directly responsible to responding to these claims and has oversight of these claims, but giving it to us makes absolutely no sense and it's not our second most important role. Our most important role is elections and our second is handling council matters up here and acting as parliamentarians. Claims is not.

Risk management is in your department? Risk management is the Department of Corporation Council. We are it, all right? We don't actually process those claims. The claims are actually processed by the third party administrator. That's who processes them. But I want to touch on for you, Council Member Johnson and Council Member Cook, Council Member Rollins-Fernandez, Council Member Palten, everybody. The second paragraph of the clerk's charter designated duty is to take charge of, safely keep and dispose of all books, papers and records which may properly be filed in the clerk's office. Our office doesn't have that duty. Only the clerks do. And there's a reason why it's filed in the clerk's office. Because, and I heard Chair Lee mention it this morning, you hold the purse strings. You get to see as they come in what the potential exposure is. The public has known this for decades and decades. It's pretty much the way of the world throughout the country except for apparently Honolulu. who's willing to bear the burden of hiring special counsel. But they have a bigger tax base than we do. So the real question is, do you want us as your lawyers or do you want us as your witnesses? We can't really go into court and try to vouch for the fact, yeah, we received this or we didn't receive this. Or in the most recent case I had, what they were claiming they filed was something completely different. than what the clerk's office was telling us they had filed. You don't want us to be in that position because once that happens, we're out.

Okay, I appreciate your comments, Mr. Gores, and the amount of money we spend on private counsel, special counsel is absurd, so I hear where you're coming from, but obviously there's other council members that speak on this, and it sounds like the clerks don't agree with that assessment. So I'll pass it on. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Johnson.

Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo Chair, I guess, how does the Honolulu City and County handle the filing of claims? Do they have to hire a special counsel because they then conflict themself out?

No, they don't handle it that way. And there's a way for corporation counsel and risk management to work this out so that they can handle it the same way city and county does. It really just comes down ultimately to the fact that our members of the public need someone forward-facing that can give them status. And that's why I believe Corporation, Council, and City and County handles it that way. They can have their risk management go out and speak to them just like our Corporation, Council can do as well. And timestamping will address when things are received. The legal department takes all kinds of very important documents every single day and can easily keep track of when claims are received for purposes of litigation matters if it gets to that.

Mr. Gore, so risk management is a different division than the litigation division. So why would litigators then be conflicted out if risk management receives the claims?

They are us. It's that simple. They are the Department of Corporation Council. Just like the litigation section is a section, they are also. And the reality is, is that... if we accept these and we have to, we are now taking on a different role, a whole new perspective of, okay, we are going to have to vouch for this. All right. That's really what it comes down to. And, um,

Mr. Gore, I'm inclined to pass this and put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. Do you know how you would make that work? I'm also supportive of adding more resources to risk division to enable this to work out, but if Honolulu can do it, then I think we can too.

Well, I'm well aware. I actually requested input from colleagues throughout the country who are actually litigators and are continuing to litigate and haven't taken any breaks from litigating. And they said, so you're trying to make yourself a witness. That's what you're trying to do. You really can't have it both ways. And I will tell you, as a plaintiff's lawyer, I always made it a point to try to figure out a way to conflict out the defense counsel on the other side, and there was a reason for that. Drove up the expenses and forced them to try to settle the case. It really isn't much different here, and you would probably notice that with some of the cases I've had to come in here with.

So Mr. Gore, have you seen that happen in Honolulu?

I don't practice in Honolulu, okay.

Because I understand what you're saying to us, but if there isn't evidence that that's happening in Honolulu and they're handling claims this way, then perhaps we can find that same way to balance it.

Well, you're assuming it's working in Honolulu. You don't know what they're doing in terms of having the higher special counsel.

Oh, I asked the clerks.

Well, that's great, but we don't have anybody here from Honolulu to actually explain what they're doing or how they're doing it. And I think that would be...

I heard the timer, and maybe my neighbor can then follow up with the clerks on citing their source of the information that I had asked for.

Neighbor with your hand.

Decorum in the court. Oh, okay.

I wish it was going down the line, but if you're willing to defer to member...

It's not by raise of hand. You are next.

May I? Yeah, if you would like to defer to Member Palten, I can switch up the order. Member Palten.

I'm just wondering if this was on the ballot in 2018, what has changed significantly to 2026? I know Lahaina burned down, that's a significant, there's COVID, but... what changed that we think that the voters are gonna have, like we have a limited number of slots of things, charter amendments that we don't wanna overwhelm. And if it's already been on the ballot, like within our recent lifetime history of memory, why are we putting it on again when the voters already told us no? It would be like us asking again, do you still want 10 lifetime terms for us? Because we're so awesome and the previous people weren't so awesome and so do you still want 10 lifetime terms or no? You want us to keep going merry-go-round like how Kaua'i does? So that's my question. It already went on the ballot. We have a limited number of, we have more charter amendments than we want to put on it, so why would we put it on again when they kind of told us what they wanted. They told us they wanted us to serve 10 years and be pow, and I'm gonna listen to that. I'm not gonna say you sure, because how awesome I am. Are you sure you don't want me to serve longer?

Because I don't want to serve longer. I think we understand the question. Clerks, can you respond to the question of what changed since the last time this went before the voters?

I think it's exactly what you just pointed out. The Lahaina fires and the Kula fires and just the overall increase in the number of claims that we've received is what's generating us trying to resolve this problem and provide a better service to our public.

So when there weren't a lot of claims, people said, no, it's not a problem. But do we know the number of claims that there were like in 2016 versus the number of claims there are in 2026? I could get that information for you. Missed total. Yeah.

2025 and 2018.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So to answer your question, we had in the calendar year 2023, 92 claims, 2024, 59 claims, and last year, 70 claims. And do we know how much we had in like 2017, 2018? I don't have that information in front of me, but that's easy to get.

Okay, yeah, can we write it down?

And can I ask my staff to check that? Because I don't think, with the wildfires alone, we were getting massive packets. If you combine them and say this is a wildfire claim and it has 200 people in it, that's one thing, but it's a different ballgame for us.

Okay, so can we ask that question in writing so we can get like, maybe ask it to both.

Staff, did you get the question?

The plaintiff and the defendant, whoever is whoever.

Member Paltin, can you repeat the question for staff so that they can transmit it in writing to both the clerks and corporation counsel? Oh, clerks and corporation, yeah.

Can we know the number of claims annually for like 23, 24, 25, and... 2016, 2017, 2018, and for the plaintiff's defendants, court counsel, the clerks.

Going back 10 years.