HILO — Eight is apparently not enough for Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille, who is proposing a charter amendment to increase council members’ terms to three consecutive four-year stints. ADVERTISING HILO — Eight is apparently not enough for Kohala Councilwoman Margaret
HILO — Eight is apparently not enough for Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille, who is proposing a charter amendment to increase council members’ terms to three consecutive four-year stints.
Council members currently are limited to four two-year terms before they have to sit out at least a term. Voters adopted the eight-year limit in 1996.
Wille’s Bill 154 is scheduled to be heard by the County Council Finance Committee at 2 p.m. Tuesday in Hilo council chambers. The public can also testify by videoconference from the West Hawaii Civic Center, Waimea council office, King Kamehameha Park conference room in Kapaau, the Naalehu state office building or the Pahoa neighborhood facility.
If the bill passes, it would place the question on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 8 general election.
Hawaii’s four counties handle council terms differently. Only Kauai has the same setup as Hawaii County, with four consecutive two-year terms. Honolulu council members can serve two consecutive four-year terms; Maui council members can serve five consecutive two-year terms.
It’s be no means the first time the subject’s come up in Hawaii County.
The council considered a charter amendment in 2005 that would have allowed members to serve six consecutive two-year terms before having to leave office. It was sponsored by Hilo Councilman Aaron Chung, who returned to the council in 2014 after sitting out eight years.
“That one died unceremoniously,” Chung said. “I introduced it late in my last term … It wouldn’t have benefited me.”
The 2010 Charter Commission considered extending council terms, but ended up not putting it on the ballot, said North Kona Councilwoman Karen Eoff, who served as a staff member for the commission.
Eoff said she herself favors a four-year term, but she thinks it should be limited to two in succession.
“You’re getting good at your job; your staff is getting good at their job,” in a four-year term, Eoff said.
Chung and Wille say longer terms are needed so the council can focus on more long-term projects and fulfill its role as the policy-making body of the county. Two years just isn’t enough time to tackle complex issues such as environmental waste solutions and big road projects, they say.
“I think we need to think long-term,” Wille said Friday. “We need to do more long-term thinking, and this would enable us to do that.”
“It’s hard to set a policy,” Chung said, “when you have to grapple with a complex issue, and it can take a long time to vet.”
In addition, Chung said, the council needs to act during economic cycles; creating more affordable housing, for example, during a down economy in anticipation of the need when the economy improves.
“A lot of things move in cycles, and eight years does not a cycle make,” he said.
Hilo Councilman Dennis “Fresh” Onishi doesn’t agree with the premise. He said he’ll be voting against the bill.
Onishi said frequent concerns from council members that a two-year term has them spending too much time away from their council duties to campaign just doesn’t hold water.
“I believe that eight years is sufficient,” Onishi said. “That way council members in each district will be willing to work hard in their district. … You don’t have to worry about campaigning so much because you’re always out in the community.”
