Oahu voters are being asked to help the city resolve a numbers problem.
It’s got nothing to do with the cost of the now $8 billion-plus rail project or any of its policies, but rather its ability to get its work done.
For the past year, the board of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation has had difficulty holding votes or taking any other action during meetings because of an ongoing struggle to maintain what it perceives to be a quorum, the number of board members needed to conduct business.
HART board Chairman Damien Kim said the issue has even hampered the board’s ability to hold a meeting.
“Every meeting is a challenge,” he said.
On Thursday, Kim had to re-order the items posted on the 8 a.m. agenda to put more critical business up front and done by 10:30 a.m. because member John Henry Felix was absent and member Terri Fujii had to leave after two-and-a-half hours. Those critical agenda items included the controversial, project-shifting decision to find a private partner to help construct the remaining portions of the rail line.
A proposed amendment to the Honolulu City Charter that’s before voters on the General Election ballot would state clearly that six members are needed to hold a vote and that six members are needed to constitute a quorum.
The problem arose last fall when the number of HART board members was increased to 14 from 10 by the state Legislature as a condition of Act 1, which granted HART a $2.4 billion bailout package to deal with the project’s escalating costs.
Ambiguity may persist
City officials believe that it’s unclear if the four members added by Act 1, a state initiative, are legally on the board because HART and its board were formed under the Honolulu Charter. If the ballot question doesn’t pass, that ambiguity continues, they said.
Act 1 required that the board be expanded to include four additional, non-voting board members — two appointed by the state Senate president and two by the state House speaker. State lawmakers believed the four additional members would provide additional input and oversight for the taxpayer money they authorized.
Oahu voters in 2010 passed a Charter amendment establishing HART as a semi-autonomous entity to run the city’s rail project. It called for a policy-making board with 10 members, nine of them voting. The nine consisted of three members chosen by the mayor, three members chosen by the Council, the state Department of Transportation director, the city Department of Transportation Services director, and a ninth member chosen by the other eight voting members. The director of the city Department of Planning and Permitting was the one, non-voting tenth member.
The 2010 Charter amendment language says a majority of the entire panel must agree for the board to take action. Since November, under advice from city attorneys, the board has considered the number of votes needed to take action at eight (a majority of 14) where it was previously six (a majority of 10).
In November, top city attorney Donna Leong voiced concerns at a City Council meeting that the board expansion could leave the project vulnerable to legal challenges by rail opponents.
With only nine voting members, eight of them need to be present and agree for any policy-making to occur and it’s proven difficult to wrangle that number, Kim said.
At its meeting Wednesday, the board was supposed to vote on a resolution voicing support for the proposed Charter amendment. It couldn’t do so because only seven voting members were present, Kim said.
“We weren’t able to discuss it and take a position on it,” Kim said. “We lost quorum and we weren’t able to take a vote on it.”
Two or three other items were tabled for lack of quorum that day, he said.
Kim pointed out that he and the six other appointed members are volunteers who sometimes need to tend to their personal lives.
Actions delayed
At its Nov. 6 meeting, the first to include the four new members, the board did not act on a key $18 million change order, among other things, after two voting members left during the meeting.
Andrew Robbins, HART executive director, said he doesn’t believe he’s allowed to formally take a position on the proposed Charter amendment. However, he voiced concerns with the current situation at a Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial board meeting last week.
“It’s created quite a challenge for us to, first of all, to get nine (voting members) to show up, or eight to show up but then … everybody would have to agree,” Robbins said. “We have a volunteer board so every month we’re constantly (asking) ‘Can you make it? Do you have to leave early or whatever?’ And it’s a constant juggling of the agenda to make sure we can get our business done. So it’s really hampered our ability to do business.”
City proposal
The proposed Charter amendment, spelled out in City Council Resolution 17-288, would:
>> Incorporate into the city Charter what was in the state’s Act 1 adding four non-voting members, two appointed by the Senate and two by the House.
>> Adds a 15th member, picked by the Council, who is voting, making it a total of 10 voting members.
>> Removes the five non-voting members as a condition to make quorum, redefining quorum as a majority of the 10 voting members, or six voting members.
If approved, six (voting or non-voting) members would be needed to meet, and six voting members would be needed to make a decision.
The original resolution that the Caldwell administration proposed called for making the DPP director a voting member but leaving the composition at 14. But Council members balked, arguing that would give the mayor five voting members — the three he appoints, the DTS director and the DPP director to their three appointees. As a result, Resolution 17-288 as passed by the Council includes a fifteenth member — a fourth, voting Council-appointed member.
Council Chairman Ernie Martin said he and colleagues agreed that the quorum issued needs to be addressed. “It would allow the board to move forward and conduct its business with minimal disruption,” he said.
But the Council also felt the additional member would level the playing field between the administrative and legislative branches of the city by ensuring both have four voting HART appointees, Martin said.
Mayor Kirk Caldwell, who signed the bill placing the amendment question on the Oahu ballot, said he’s fine with the Legislature’s idea of adding four non-voting members. Caldwell also said he was OK with the Council’s addition of one more voting member. “More eyes and more voices are helpful, but it creates practical issues about getting quorum,” he said.
Caldwell said he’s worried that two state Constitutional amendment questions facing voters in the General Election — one calling for a Constitutional Convention and the second allowing the state to use property taxes to fund public education — have grabbed a lot of attention while the HART Charter amendment has not.
“That’s somewhat concerning,” he said.
Not everyone thinks passing the Charter amendment is a good idea.
Community advocate and rail critic Natalie Iwasa opposes the amendment because it would result in 10 voting members. “In order to avoid tie votes, it’s recommended that boards contain an odd number of voting members,” she said.
Additionally, Iwasa questions the decision by Council members to insert language giving themselves a fourth appointee. “For a board that was set up to ‘remove politics’ from rail, it remains political as evidenced by the Council’s desire to appoint,” she said.
HOW THE HART BOARD BEATS
The evolution of the HART board and the proposed charter amendment change:
ORIGINAL BOARD
10 members (9 voting)
>> Members: 3 appointed by mayor, 3 by Council, the state transportation director, the city transportation director, and the ninth member decided by the previous 8; city planning director (non-voting)
>> Quorum: 6 to convene, 6 to OK a vote
AFTER STATE ACT 1
14 members (9 voting)
>> Added: 4 nonvoting members – 2 appointed by Senate and 2 by House
>> Quorum: Ambiguous and up to interpretation; HART is using 8 to convene, 8 to OK a vote
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
15 members (10 voting)
>> Finalizes: Formally incorporates the 4 added members in Act 1
>> Adds: 1 new voting member appointed by the Council
>> Quorum: 6 to convene, 6 to OK a vote
