To Council Members re: biased Charter Review Commission

10/19/16

Council members,

Allan Parachini, chair of the Charter Review Commission, has implemented the intense bias that I strongly highlighted when his nomination was confirmed by the council. He was chosen by Jan TenBruggencate for the charter review commission with the express purpose to pre-empt the ability of the citizen to be successful of promoting a charter amendment as happened regarding pesticide protection last election cycle. The intention was evident at the time. Jan and Allan are such clear advocates for large business that the word lobbyist is probably appropriate, especially for Jan. Jan selected two-year Kauai resident, Allan, for the commission and passed his chairmanship of the board over to Allan about a year later.

The proposed reason for a one-time, ten-year Charter Review Commission was to take a comprehensive look at the aged document and review for areas of weakness and bring it to the public. We needed holistic structural improvement that would be vetted by the public.  Instead, we have had a piecemeal method of addressing specific special interests over time. The Charter Review Commissioners are trained in Roberts Rules of Order and never with a full explanation or training about what is the purpose of the charter and the goal of the commission. We have selected miscellaneous citizens from diverse backgrounds like car salesmen, shop owner, carpenter, filmmaker, farmer, educator... in a streaming fashion of entry, most without a background of law or public policy.  And yet we leave them vulnerable to opportunistic interests to infiltrate the process. There is virtually no pathway for public accountability.

• Mr. Parachini has lived up to my concerns by producing deceptive ballot questions that leave off significant factors like removing the mayorʻs line of authority to the fire chief in proposal #2, without having that written anywhere on the ballot. Proposal #3 regarding a zoning board of appeals does not mention that it eliminates the layer of professional legal oversight with a hired hearings officer. Proposal #5 does not educate the distinctions between referendum, ordinance or charter amendment on either the ballot or the legal notice.
• The questions were intentionally worded to elicit a YES response as witnessed in the commission meeting.
• There are no pro and con arguments stated in the legal notice. 
• The legal notice has 6 not 7 ballot questions and they are in a different order, causing confusion for people who may study ahead of time and write down vote choices. 
• The legal notice is not easy to find, they are no longer in the paper; one has to be smart enough to know to go to the library
• Allan has abused his role by having a completely biased front page headline in the Garden Island newspaper that is titled Changing With the Times, that nowhere informs the voter of a counter argument ~  Allan is a contributing writer to the paper and knowingly  benefited by the innocence of a young, new reporter who does not understand the subtleties of the issue. 
• Without diligent attendance of the meetings and political acumen, the Charter Review Commission exploits the trust of the citizens to surrender their own power. The wording and exclusion of information at critical points in the process is intentionally deceptive.

WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROPOSAL, ALL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TAKE POWER FROM THE CITIZEN AND AWAY FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.  This is not stated or evident anywhere on the ballot; only the politically sophisticated would understand this subtlety. 

The Charter Review Commission is 7 non-elected, barely vetted people who are able to effectively circumvent the political process with virtually no oversight.  Internal departments of the county government basically are able to utilize this vehicle to make changes to the county charter behind closed doors. There is no televised (Hoike) programs, nor reporters in the room highlighting the concentration of power that is taken away from the voter. The public notification  is the bare minimum requirement, posted deep in the county website 6 days prior to a meeting. It is essentially visible to only the most politically sophisticated of the public. Mr. Parachiniʻs position at the paper is not used to invite constructive community participation in this process.  Last I checked, there had been three successful citizen led ballot initiatives and roughly 65 that have come from the Charter Review Commission.

The middle column of the three questions on the ballot (items 5,6, & 7) are to effectively eliminate the ability of the citizens to get a ballot initiative passed if they so need, while extending Charter Review Commissionʻs own reign of capacity. (After they voted to put the 10 year extension on their own reign of power, Jay Furfaro let them know that it would be a brand new board and not them. From the looks on their faces, they had not anticipated that.) 

In the time we have had this commission, the size of the county budget has tripled in part because of the Charter Review Commission allowing for an opportunity for silent government growth without the oversight of the County Council who really should have this responsibility.

We have a problem, as I have highlighted on at least three meetings where new commissioners have been confirmed.

I told you so.

Felicia Cowden

Kilauea