here’s the last 10, as promised, continued from a previous post.

Amendment #11
Should an approval process and an advisory commission for Clean Water Natural Lands Fund projects be establish in the Charter?

Present Situation: An advisory commission and the approval process for expenditures from the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund are not established in the Charter.

If Proposal Passes: This proposal would establish an advisory commission and the review and approval procedures with respect to the Clean Water Natural Lands Fund.

wow. like too many of these, the information provided by the charter commission… sucks. no back ground, no practical impact information.

the clean water and natural lands fund is meant to “provide for the purchase of or to otherwise acquire real estate or any interest therein for land conservation in the city” for conservation, preservation, or public recreation and education.

the amendment, it sounds like, would allow the city to use the fund to fulfill the mission of the fund without itself having a stake in or purchasing the land. i’m not sure how i feel about that.

if the city is going to use public moneys to preserve important lands, it should have a stake in the property to ensure proper stewardship and have a say in the future of the property.

i’ll likely vote “no” on this one.

Amendment #12
Should all boards and commissions, except for the Board of Water Supply, the board for the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) and any board or commission mandated by state or federal law, be reviewed periodically to determine whether they should be retained, amended or repealed?

Present Situation: Boards and commissions are not evaluated to determine if they are fulfilling their purpose to serve a public interest or goal.

If Proposal Passes: The City Council would periodically evaluate all boards and commissions, except the Board of Water Supply, the board for the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) and those boards and commissions mandated by state or federal law, to determine whether they should be retained, amended or repealed.

given that the city council already has the authority to review boards and commissions, i’m not sure this is necessary. that it excludes HART is telling, though i’m not sure what it’s telling.

there was an attempt earlier this year to eliminate the neighborhood board commission, which was met with strong opposition from the public. this might be an attempt to pursue that move from another angle, but it’s hard to say.

either way, this one seems unnecessary to me. i’ll be voting “no”.

Amendment #13
Should the Grants in Aid Fund be the sole source (with certain designated exceptions) for city-funded grants to federal income tax-exempt nonprofit organizations that provide services to economically and/or socially disadvantaged populations or that provide services for the public benefit in the areas of the arts, culture, economic development or the environment?

Present Situation: City-funded grants to nonprofit organizations are awarded by city departments and agencies through their own review processes. The City Council awards city-funded grants to nonprofit organization for specific purposes, separate from the Grants in Aid Fund. Grants awarded by the City Council from the Grants in Aid Fund are specifically limited to federal income tax-exempt nonprofit organizations that provided services limited to economically and/or socially disadvantaged populations or that provide for the public benefit in areas of the arts, culture, economic development or the environment.

If Proposal Passes: With certain exceptions, the Grants in Aid Fund would be the sole source of city-funded grants. These grants may be awarded only to federal income tax-exempt nonprofit organizations providing services to economically and/or socially disadvantaged populations or for the public benefit in the areas of the arts, culture, economic development or the environment. The Grants in Aid Advisory Commission would provide recommendations based on these limitations and the City Council would continue to determine which organizations would receive such grants and the amounts of the grants.

currently, there are basically two ways to receive a GIA from the city: go through the formal vetting process, or get a council member to include the funds in the city budget separate from the GIA fund.

i am very sensitive to the idea of public moneys going to private business, even nonprofits. but i understand most people don’t completely agree with me.

in the case of this proposed amendment, at least the process would be more restrictive. all GIA applications would go through the commission with recommendations to the city council and grants could only be awarded out of the fund.

i’ll vote “yes”.

Amendment #14
Should the deadline to hold a special election to replace the mayor, prosecutor or council members be extended from 60 to 120 days, and should the City Council be able to appoint a temporary member until a special election is held?

Present Situation: The time provided for special elections by the Charter is insufficient to meet the requirements of state law. When a council member leaves office midterm, there is no provision for appointing a temporary replacement.

If Proposal Passes: The scheduling of city special elections would be in compliance with the state law, and the City Council would be able to appoint a temporary replacement council member when the vacancy is for an unexpired term of one year or more. If the City council does not name a successor within 30 days of the vacancy, the mayor would make the appointment.

this one seems pretty straight forward to me. i’ll be voting “yes”.

there doesn’t seem to be any real opposition to the proposal. in fact, no testimony in opposition was given. giving the office of elections and the city clerk more time to hold the special election is a good idea and allowing a temporary appointment to be made in the case of a mid-term vacancy ensures that those residents have representation on the council until a special election is held.

Amendment #15
Should the term limit for the prosecuting attorney, the mayor and the councilmembers be three consecutive four-year terms?

Present Situation: The mayor and the councilmembers are limited to two consecutive four-year terms and there is no term limits for the prosecuting attorney.

If Proposal Passes: The proposed amendment would establish uniform term limits of three consecutive four-year terms for the prosecuting attorney, the mayor, and the councilmembers. Current office holders serving a four-year term (first term) and running for re-election in 2016, if re-elected (second term), would be eligible for one more four-year term in 2020 (third term). New office holders, and any persons filing out the remainder of someone else’s four-year term, if elected in 2016 (first term) would be eligible for two more terms in 2020 (second term) and 2024 (third term). Current office holders serving a four-year term (first term) but not running for re-election until 2018 (second term) would be eligible for one more four-year term in 2022 (third term).

personally, i don’t have strong feelings about this one, but will likely vote “no”

i am, i suspect, in a very small minority of people who don’t support term limits — i can talk about that another time — and while limits already exist for the mayor and council members, this would create a term limit for the prosecuting attorney.

since the term limit already exists for the mayor and council members, i don’t see any reason to extend it. and i certainly don’t agree with creating a term limit for the prosecuting attorney.

Amendment #16
Should certain city departments be responsible for their own program planning and small infrastructure design and construction projects, and should the powers, functions, and duties of the Department of Environmental Services be updated and expanded to emphasize resource recovery and include the planning, engineering, design, and construction of all of its projects?

Present Situation: All city design and construction projects are currently the responsibility of the Department of Design and Construction (DDC), regardless of size. This broad responsibility requires DDC to use its limited resources to work on small construction projects that could be done by the departments responsible for the infrastructure. The charter authority for planning, engineering, design and construction of the Department of Environmental Services projects resides with DDC.

If Proposal Passes:
– DDC would direct its resources to major projects, while the departments of Enterprise Services, Environmental Services, Facility Maintenance, Transportation Services, Information Technology, and Parks and Recreation would be responsible for their own program planning and infrastructure projects of limited size and complexity and would not be dependent upon DDC for such work.

– The powers, duties, and functions of the Department of Environmental Services (ENV) would be further updated and expanded, to emphasize resource recovery, including the planning, engineering, design, construction, and improvement of all of ENV’s wastewater and solid waste systems projects, and incorporate other provisions that more completely reflect the department’s current activities.

while (i think) i like the sound of the department of environmental services emphasizing resource recovery, the rest of the amendment sounds completely unnecessary. it would, add inefficiencies and duplicative work throughout city government.

i’ll be voting “no”.

Amendment #17
Should the mayor have the authority to delegate the signing of documents to certain other city officers?

Present Situation: The mayor signs a significant number of documents that require execution by the city, as required by the Charter. Many of these documents are recurring or involve business decisions that relate to routine or ordinary city operations.

If Proposal Passes: The mayor would have the authority to designate the managing director and deputy managing director to sign instruments requiring execution by the city. The mayor would also have the authority to designate administrative head of an executive department or office to sign instruments requiring execution by the city that affect the administrative head’s respective department or office.

i’ll vote “no”.

it sounds to me like the mayor may not actually like the work of being mayor. or that it’s getting in the way of the “fun stuff,” whatever that may be.

i’d be supportive of some provision allowing for appointment for limited signing authority, say when the mayor is out of town, ill, etc. but this amendment goes too far and doesn’t seem to have any limit.

as they say, “the buck stops here,” and the mayor should be doing this work unless otherwise unavailable. i think this amendment could also create problems down the road along the lines of some scandal the mayor could simply say he didn’t know about because he wasn’t the one who “signed it.” bridgegate comes to mind.

Amendment #18
Should the Fire Commission be expanded from five to seven members, and should the fire chief’s powers, duties and functions be updated to reflect current services?

Present Situation: There are currently five members on the Fire Commission. The powers, duties and functions of the fire chief including fire fighting and rescue work, responding to emergencies in hazardous terrain and on the sea, providing emergency medical care, maintaining and supervising a force of fire-fighting personnel, monitoring the construction and occupancy standards of buildings for the purposes of fire prevention, and providing educational programs related to fire prevention.

If Proposal Passes: The number of members of the Fire Commission would increase to seven members and the powers, duties, and functions of the fire chief would be expanded by adding new services, including education programs for life safety, and investigation of fires and explosions for cause and origin, as well as adding personnel for emergency response, reviewing construction plans and inspecting buildings to prevent fires.

i’ll vote “no”

this one is a combination of two proposals. they should have been kept separate.

i don’t have a problem with updating the job description of the fire chief to reflect real changes in what is being done. what i don’t understand is the move to increase the number of commission members. there’s some suggestion the move is a response to the commission currently have problems meeting quorum, but i don’t see how adding members will solve that problem. if the fire commission can’t make quorum with five members, i don’t see how they expect to do so with seven.

Amendment #19
Should the requirement be repealed that no more than five of the City Council Reapportionment Commission’s nine members be from the same political party?

Present Situation: The City Council Reapportionment Commission determines the boundaries of each City Council district. The City Charter limits the number of members of the Commission to no more than five members from the same political party.

If Proposal Passes: Appointments to the City Council Reapportionment Commission would be made without limits based on party affiliation.

i had to ponder this one for a bit, but i’ll be voting “yes”.

opponents have raised the specter of gerrymandering as a negative consequence should this amendment pass, but i just don’t see it. yes, nationally, gerrymandering has been a serious issue for some time and is one of root causes of the disfunction of our federal government.

that’s the case, though, because nationally we have a government comprised of two political parties. the same isn’t true of the city council. candidates run unaffiliated and the leadership structure of the city council isn’t dependent on one party holding a majority or the other.

even if democrats were to use the elimination of the party affiliation limits to their advantage, i cannot foresee how it would affect the makeup of the council in any negative way. maybe political ideology associated with one party or another would have greater influence in a particular district as a result of gerrymandering, but i’d say that’s already the case in the current map.

i should disclose i am an officer in the democratic party of hawaii. that affiliation, though, hasn’t impacted my position here….

Amendment #20
Should the Charter be amended for housekeeping amendments (i) to conform to current functions and operation, (ii) to conform to legal requirements, (iii) to correct an inadvertent omission, and (iv) for clarity?

(a) Require the books and records of all city departments to be open public inspection;
(b) Require the Department of the Corporation Counsel to update the Charter by July 1 of the year after the election at which the Carter amendments proposed by the Charter Commission are approved by the electorate;
(c) Require the Charter Commission to submit amendments to the Office of the City Clerk five working days before the deadline for ballot questions to be submitted to the state Chief Election Officer;
(d) Require that all written contracts of the Board of Water Supply and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation be approved by the Department of the Corporation Counsel for form and legality; and
(e) Require that the city centralized purchasing practices conform to the state procurement code.

Present Situation: (a) The Charter excludes records of the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney from public inspection, although state law requires open records;
(b) The Department of the Corporation Counsel does not have a time requirement to prepare updated editions to the Charter;
(c) The Charter Commission is required to submit amendments to the Office of the City Clerk any time before September 1 of the year when amendments will be placed on the ballot.
(d) The Board of Water Supply and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation are not required to obtain approval on written contracts from the Department of the Corporation Counsel with regard to form and legality; and
(e) Certain Charter provisions do not conform to state procurement code.

If Proposal Passes: (a) The Charter would be amended to permit the public inspection of city books and records, including those of the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney and be consistent with state law;
(b) An updated edition of the Charter would be published by July 1 of the year after the election at which proposed amendments approved by the Charter Commission, are approved by the electorate;
(c) The Charter Commission would submit the proposed Charter amendments to the Office of the City Clerk five working days before the state deadline;
(d) The Board of Water Supply and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation would be required to obtain approval from the Department of the Corporation Counsel on all written contracts, with regard to form and legality;
(e) The Charter would require the city to follow the state procurement code.

i’ll be voting “yes”.

none of these provisions seem controversial and there was no public testimony in opposition.


Read more

though i didn’t get to it yesterday, as i promised, here’s part one of my thoughts on the proposed honolulu charter amendments.

Amendment #1
Should the Police Commission have greater authority to suspend or dismiss the chief of police and have additional powers to investigate complaints concerning officer misconduct, and should the chief of police be required to submit a written explanation for his or her disagreement with the Commission?

Present Situation: The chief of police can only be removed for continuous maladministration after being given a reasonable period to correct the maladministration. The Police Commission does not have the authority to subpoena witnesses or require the production of evidence relevant to a Police Commission investigation. The chief of police is not required to respond to the Police Commission concerning the Commission’s recommendations regarding office misconduct.

If Proposal Passes: The Police Commission could remove or suspend the chief of police before the end of the chief’s five-year appointment for any reason, including behavior inconsistent with the interests of the public or the city. The Police Commission would be able to subpoena witnesses and require the production of evidence pertinent to a Police Commission investigation. The chief of police would be required to provide in writing the reasons for any disagreement with a Police Commission recommendation.

this one seems like a no-brainer to me. if the police commission appoints the chief of police, they should have equal power to remove them for any reason. the commission should also have the power to subpoena witness and compel the production of documents or other information relevant to an investigation under its authority.

the charter amendment appears to be a direct response to ongoing investigations of the current chief of police, louis kealoha.

Amendment #2
Should the Ethics Commission set salaries of the Ethics Commission’s executive director and staff attorneys within specified limits?

Present Situation: The Ethics Commission sets the executive director’s salary but not those of the Commission’s staff attorneys.

If Proposal Passes: The Ethics Commission would have the authority to set salaries of its executive director and staff attorneys. The salary of the executive director would not exceed the salary of the first deputy corporation counsel and the salary of any other staff attorney would not exceed the salary of the executive director.

though i’m not sure what the impetus is behind this proposal, but it also seems pretty cut and try to me. the ethics commission, which enforces and advises on the city’s ethics laws, has the power to hire and fire the executive director and staff attorneys. it seems only reasonable that the commission also have some authority with respect to salaries, within certain limits.

Amendment #3
Should the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney control its budget after it is approved by the City Council?

Present Situation: The executive branch can withhold funds from the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney after the department’s budget has been approved by the City Council.

If Proposal Passes: The executive branch would not be able to withhold funding that has been approved by the City Council for the operation of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.

this proposed amendment may be a symptom of the ongoing… bickering between the mayor’s office and the city council, though it’s not entirely clear to me. it seems touchy and potentially represents a slippery slope.

on the one hand, an argument can be made that the department of the prosecuting attorney should maintain some autonomy from the executive branch, in the case the mayor’s office. the department of the prosecuting attorney’s budget, presumably is included in the overall budget passed by the city council and approved by the mayor, maybe shouldn’t be subject to the same whims of the executive branch as other departments.

still, if this authority is taken from the mayor’s office it could lead to additional, similar shrinking of the power of the executive. the balance of the three government branches is a delicate thing and when too much tweaking takes place, the possibility of one branch losing too much authority at the hands of another, the whole system can begin to break down.

though on its face, i think it’s probably fine, but what it could represent going forward makes me a bit uneasy. i’ll be voting “no” on this one.

Amendment #4
Should a unified multi-modal transportation system be created by:
1) Forming a Rate Commission to annually review and recommend adjustments to bus and paratransit fares, rail fares and parking fees;
2) Placing operations and maintenance responsibilities for bus, paratransit and rail solely in the Department of Transportation Services and providing for the transfer of positions and legal rights and obligations relating to rail operations and maintenance from the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) to the Department of Transportation Services effective July 1, 2017; and
3) Clarifying the responsibility of the HART Board to establish policies, rules, and regulations regarding the development of the rail system, the internal management and organization of HART, and the allocation of decision-making authority between the Board and the agency’s executive director and staff, and amending the responsibilities of the HART Board include determine the policies for approval of certain agreements with the federal, public or private entities?

Present Situation: The Charter currently assigns fare setting for bus and paratrasnit to the Transportation Commission, with final approval by the City Council, and the setting of rail fares to HART. There is no advisory review board dedicated to the regular review of fares and rates. The Charter assigns operations and maintenance (O&M) of bus and paratransit to DTS and rail to HART. The Charter states the HART Board is not to interfere in the administrative affairs of HART.

If Proposal Passes: The operations and maintenance (O&M) of the city-owned multi-modal transportation system would be unified under the director of transportation services. All O&M contracts and O&M personnel at the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) would be transferred to the Department of Transportation Services effective July 1, 2017. The Department of Transportation Services would become solely responsible for the integration and coordination of public transportation services. The mayor and the City Council would appoint the members of a Rate Commission, and the Commission would review and recommend, at least annually, adjustments to fares, rates, and tariffs. The authority of the HART Board to establish policies, rules, and regulations regarding the development of the rail system, the internal management and organization of HART, and the allocation of decision-making authority between the Board and administrative staff would be clarified. Also, the responsibilities of the HART Board would be amended to include determining the policies for approval of certain agreements with the federal, public or private entities.

i’m inclined to vote “yes” on this one, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable.

the amendment, it appears, would streamline decision-making with regard to the county’s transportation services. it makes sense that transportation-related topics be handled by the city’s department of transportation services.

and i like the idea of having an independent commission reviewing and recommending changes to rates and fares for the bus and rail systems. this would, i think, somewhat take these decisions out of the political realm, though the city council would ultimately have the final say.

still, i sense an undercurrent of political motivation that goes beyond the question itself. since before ground was broken on the rail, it has been a political lightening rod. i can’t clearly see what additional, unintended, or hidden consequences may result from the approval of this amendment.

Amendment #5
Should the Affordable Housing Fund be used to develop rental housing for persons earning 60 percent or less of the median household income, provided that the housing remains affordable for at least 60 years.

Present Situation: The current income limits for residents of Affordable Housing Fund-assisted dwellings is less than 50 percent of the median household income, which is more restrictive than affordable housing requirements of other government entities. In addition, any Affordable Housing Fund-assisted dwellings must remain affordable in perpetuity.

If Proposal Passes: the permissible use of funds from the Affordable Housing Fund would be limited to rental housing, but expanded to provide affordable rental housing for persons earning 60 percent or less of the median housing income in the city. This would align the Affordable Housing Fund’s income restrictions with those used by other government entities. The authority to use the Affordable Housing Fund for affordable rental units in mixed-income projects would also be clarified. Housing funded in this manner would be required to remain affordable for at least sixty years rather than in perpetuity.

i plan to vote “no” on this one.

in 2016, according to hawaii housing finance and development corporation (hhfdc) the median income for a family of four on oahu is $100,500. 60% would be $60,300. 50% would be $50,250.

while the increase would here would definitely be a positive move, i have serious concerns about lifting the permanent limitation that currently exists and reducing it to 60 years. sure, that sounds like a long time. this limited restriction may work in other places across the country, in hawaii, where land is finite, we need real, permanent solutions to affordable housing.

were we to change restriction to 60, all we’d be doing is temporarily creating low-income housing. without real changes in other deeply structural economic problems (income, cost of living, land prices, etc.) it makes sense to fix low-income housing developments permanently, guaranteeing we won’t face a resurgence of homelessness in oahu in 61 years.

if the “in perpetuity” provision of existing law is creating hesitation for developers and land owners, we need to find other ways to incentivize construction of low-income housing.

Amendment #6
Should departments responsible for the city’s infrastructure needs be required to prepare long-term plans?

Present Situation: The departments of Environmental Services, Parks and Recreation, Facility Maintenance, and Transportation Services use different methods to choose projects for their capital improvement plans and budgets. The departments do not have overall master plans for energy efficiency city buildings, for parks and recreation, or for energy conservation and emissions reduction in transportation. Wastewater capital budgets and projects relating to improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment systems are selected to conform to the requirements of the federal consent decree and solid waste has to establish and abide by a state-funded integrated solid waste management plan.

If Proposal Passes: The required plans would help identify needs over the long term, including the need to replace and upgrade aging infrastructure now in place and to build new infrastructure in growing areas. Further, priorities and expenditures would be guided by these plans, which would be updated every five years. The provision would require the departments responsible for critical infrastructure needs of the City to address state and federal requirements in their master planning.

i’ll be voting “yes”.

state and county government, it seems to me, has been notoriously bad at planning ahead. looking to the future. i believe government can solve today’s problems while keeping those solutions in a long-term context. local government as failed to do so.

this amendment would require some county departments to look to the future in a way that is beneficial now, as well as for future generations.

seems like a no-brainer to me.

Amendment #7
Should the city use its power to serve the people in a sustainable and transparent manner and to promote stewardship of natural resources for present and future generations, and should the city create an Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency?

Present Situation: The Charter does not mandate the use of city powers to promote sustainability, stewardship of natural resources and transparency and does not establish an Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency.

If Proposal Passes: Sustainability, transparency, and natural resource stewardship would be principles of city governance. An Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency would be created as a central point for gathering information and working with others on issues related to climate change, resiliency and sustainability.

i have some trouble with this one, but will likely vote “yes”.

it seems to me the overriding intent of the amendment could be achieved without creating a whole new county department. i’m one of those few people who believe in “big government” as an instrument for good for the people. but i don’t believe in creating bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, or because it sounds good. and it sounds like that’s what’s happening here.

rather than creating a whole new department, couldn’t the amendment instead state clearly that departments will work collaboratively to “promote sustainability, stewardship of natural resources and transparency”?

still, in this case, i think the underlying principle is more important than quibbling about how the city moves forward in this area.

Amendment #8
Should a new Department of Land Management responsible for the protection, development, and management of city lands be established?

Present Situation: There is no single department responsible for management of real property owned by the city or for real property transactions. Instead, these functions are dispersed among the various departments.

If Proposal Passes: The Department of Land Management would manage real property and negotiate real property transactions on behalf of the city. As a part of its responsibilities, this department would identify the public interest served by real property transactions involving existing lands and would report to the city council, which would have final approval authority.

on this one, i’m a bit torn, but will likely vote “no”.

while i support the idea centralize the county’s land management in one place, i don’t believe a department can simultaneously be responsible for protection and development of land. inevitably, one will lose out to the other. and with so much money in land development, it isn’t hard to imagine how quickly protection will be cast aside.

it would make sense to me, should amendment #7 be approved by voters, that the office of climate change, sustainability and resiliency could be charged with protection of land under the county’s control.

Amendment #9
Should a Honolulu Zoo Fund be established and funded by a minimum of one-half of one percent of estimated annual real property taxes to pay for Honolulu Zoo expenses to assist the Honolulu Zoo in regaining its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums?

Present Situation: The Honolulu Zoo lost its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, in part, because the city does not have a consistent source of funding to pay for Honolulu Zoo expenses. The Honolulu Zoo is currently working to regain its Association of Zoos and Aquariums accreditation.

If Proposal Passes: Beginning July 1, 2017, a minimum of one-half of one percent of estimated annual real property revenues would be deposited every year in the Honolulu Zoo Fund to pay for Honolulu Zoo expenses, provided that the Fund would be automatically repealed on July 1, 2023, if the Honolulu Zoo does not regain its Association of Zoos and Aquarium accreditation.

i’m torn. on the one hand, the amendment doesn’t increase revenues to help fund the honolulu zoo. on the other hand, by requiring a dedicated funding source to the zoo, it reduces the overall size of the county’s funding pie by at least one-half of one percent.

in 2013, the most recent year i could find clear numbres, the county collected $811.8 million in real property taxes. 0.5% of that is $4.06 million. one would imagine that in 2017, those number will be even higher.

$4 million is not small change, even if it does represent 0.5% of real property revenue in 2013. i’m not sure i feel comfortable setting aside funds for the zoo while so many on oahu are sleeping on the street, or in shelters.

practically, i understand sometimes it isn’t a matter of either one or the other….

without additional information, like how much revenue the zoo generated when it was fully functional and accredited, or other benefits of having the zoo here, i’m not sure i can support this one.

Amendement #10
Should the mayor’s executive powers and the City Council’s legislative powers only be subject to exceptions specifically provided in the Charter and should the mayor and City Council be given concurrent authority to establish funds when no appropriate funds of the same type exist and to propose amendments to the annual executive budget?

Present Situation: The exceptions to the executive powers of the mayor and the legislative powers of the City Council, the authority of the City Council to amend the annual executive budget, and the authority of the mayor (with approval of the City Council) to establish funds have been questioned.

If Proposal Passes: The exceptions to the executive powers of the mayor and the legislative powers of the City Council must be specifically provided in the Charter. The mayor (with the approval of the City Council) and City Council would have concurrent authority to propose amendments to the annual executive budget and concurrent authority to establish funds when no appropriate funds of the same type exist.

i’ll likely leave this one blank (the equivalent of a “no” vote).

the information provided by the charter commission is vague. a cursory search for additional information on this one provided no substantive result. i’ll keep digging, but in the meantime, leaving it blank is the best option.

look out for 11-20 tomorrow.

Read more

in hawaii, absentee ballots have already been mailed out. but if you’re like me, and prefer voting in person, early walk-in voting begins on tuesday, october 25.

you can check here, http://elections.hawaii.gov/voters/early-voting/early-walk-in-voting-locations/, for locations on your island.

a doctor’s appointment and the day job have prevented me from completing a proper post today, but i have started to write something up on the proposed honolulu charter amendments that will be on the ballot for oahu voters.

it will likely come in two parts over the next few days, but definitely before early walk-in voting starts on tuesday.

have a good weekend!

Read more

facebook, for all its drawbacks and annoyances, is a remarkable tool for reconnecting with old friends.

such is the case with teressa and i.

we’ve been “friends” on facebook for a few years, but were friends and part of a group all the way back in middle school. i don’t think we’ve seen each other since 8th grade.

her husband was sent to hawaii for work and she didn’t hesitate to use it as an opportunity to take a vacation. and i had the good fortune catch up with her and meet her husband and two daughters this past weekend.


i was looking for an old picture to compare with this one, but alas, i couldn’t find one. there may be some in boxes somewhere at my mom’s house in overland park. but it’s more likely that there aren’t any. i don’t think i really started carrying a camera around until high school.

Read more