After writing up a summary of the rule changes last that night it struck me: once they enact the new rules, once the Council Chair single-handedly sets the council agenda, there will be no way to go back, or make any rule changes the chair does not want. In effect, the chair now has veto power over any further rule changes. (I have included my written testimony below.)
In my opinion, giving that much power to one official is unconscionable, no matter who is chair. Regardless of the caliber and integrity of the individual, democracies should function with checks and balances.
I couldn't disagree more with Councilmember KipuKai Kualiʻi who said, quoted in a TGI article:
”I’m disheartened by what’s happening today by a couple of my fellow council members and the statements that they have made,” Kualii said. “Councilman Mel Rapozo, as I have known him over the years as a constituent and colleague, has always been an honorable, positive friend to me, a leader and a servant.”
My counterpoint to this is that the rules are not about individuals and personalities - we donʻt tailor the rules for the executive branch of the federal government to fit our assessment of the new president - they are the mechanism of a functioning democratic body. No matter how wise and benevolent Council Chair Rapozo may be we still need checks and balances if only to avoid the appearances of abuse of power. The council rules should never be tailored to an individual but should be fair regardless of who is chair. By responding that it is about who is chair Councilmember Kualiʻi seems to believe that this chair deserves new added authority and can be trusted implicitly without the need of any check of that power. I would like to believe that the citizens who voted for Councilmember Kualiʻi wanted his voice on the council to shape the affairs of the county, but in supporting these new rules he has started off by giving up his voice on many decisions formerly in the purview of the council.
Rather than assessing the benevolence of the Council Chair Rapozo, I suggest that the discussion should be about the rules as supporting democratic values and checks and balances, independent of personalities. Let me ask a couple of specific questions that I think better frame the discussion than being about individuals.
[1] While Councilmember Rapozo was the top vote-getter in the election, he hardly has an overwhelming mandate of the people: of 24,043 ballots cast, 10,896 (46%) did not vote for him. I would invite any proponent of the new rules to explain now the concentration of power in the chair respects the intentions of those voters? (If there is some "efficiency" benefit I would say it needs to be extremely strong to compensate for the potential downsides.)
[2] Hypothetically, if six council members want to change a rule, or propose any resolution for that matter, to my mind they should be able to override the chair, but under these rules they cannot (if I'm mistaken in this interpretation, please comment and explain how they could). For two years only one person on this island can enable any further council rule changes. How is that a desirable way of doing business that is in the interests of the county?
Written testimony on Res. 2015-02 (new council rules)
I am concerned about the proposed rule changes in Resolution 2015-02 that the new Council Chair is taking excessive authority. Specifically, I urge the council to continue the following current rules:- Rule 9: The public right to petition the county council.
- Rule 10(c) & 15(b): Placement on Agenda within 120 days without Council Chair approval required.
Likewise, I urge rejection of the following proposed new rules:
- Rule 11 Testimony: Written testimony must be submitted as fifteen copies. This seems excessive and unnecessary burden that will only reduce public input to the Council. What happens to email testimony now permitted (that I am taking advantage of here)?
- Rule 19: Requiring advance permission for reporters to photograph council proceedings. Has there been a problem with press coverage abuses?
- There are a number of other rule changes that increase the powers of the Council Chair to solely decide things that currently the whole council decided. These are also of concern and deserve close scrutiny but for brevity I will focus on the above more egregious changes.
I have read(*) that the claim for these changes is "efficiency" yet being unaware of past problems would urge the council to only adopt these new changes in light of specific rationale and evidence that they address real concerns great enough to justify the reduction in democratic decision making and public involvement they entail.
The purported argument that removing the 120 day rule is only to prevent "illegal" proposals from coming to the council strikes me as highly disingenuous. If so, the language of the rule should state that as a condition and include a process for timely legal review. Even then, recent history (e.g. Bill No. 2491) shows that the legality of bills is controversial and as such I think properly determined by the full council. As written, the new rules allow the Council Chair to unilaterally block anything from the council agenda even without justification, short-circuiting proper council deliberation.
I would like to point out that once these rules are adopted, under the new rules the Council Chair is empowered to block any resolutions to further modify the rules so in effect once you approve this it will be the last chance for two years to change the rules in anyway the Council Chair does not want.
While there are many concerns with the new rules, allowing one person to arbitrarily control what comes before Council is by far the greatest threat that I see here, representing a highly anti-democratic change. Only after an extremely powerful justification of benefit should the council allow these rules investing so much authority in one individual, and to my mind that argument has not nearly been made.
(*) Source is below - if this is not authentic I would urge the new Council Chair to correct for the public record.
Respectfully,
