GREAT-10(13) Reso 26-93 RESOLUTION 26-93, PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO SIMPLIFY THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND DISSOLVE THE INDEPENDENT NOMINATION BOARD (GREAT-10(13))
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO SIMPLIFY THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND DISSOLVE THE INDEPENDENT NOMINATION BOARD
Chair Batangan and Members of the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, a resident of Kula, Maui, REALTOR®, and small business owner.
I am in support of Resolution 26-93, which would eliminate the Independent Nomination Board and return appointment responsibilities to the Mayor and County Council.
When voters approved the creation of the Independent Nomination Board, the public was led to believe it would increase transparency, improve the quality of appointments, reduce favoritism, encourage broader public participation, and restore confidence in government.
Several years later, I believe it is fair to ask whether those promises have been fulfilled.
In my observation, the Independent Nomination Board has not demonstrated measurable improvements in transparency, efficiency, public trust, or appointment quality. Instead, it appears to have created another layer of government bureaucracy between applicants and the elected officials who are ultimately accountable to the voters.
The public was promised independence. However, independence alone does not guarantee accountability.
An unelected board is not inherently more transparent, more qualified, or less susceptible to favoritism than elected officials. In fact, when appointment decisions are filtered through an unelected body, accountability becomes more difficult because voters cannot remove members of the Independent Nomination Board through an election.
If favoritism exists, it is not solved by moving influence from one group of decision-makers to another. Favoritism remains favoritism whether it originates from elected officials or from an unelected screening body.
The County should not maintain an additional layer of government simply because the concept sounds good. It should exist only if it produces measurable public benefits.
To date, I have not seen evidence that the Independent Nomination Board has significantly improved government performance, increased public confidence, reduced vacancies, or enhanced the quality of appointments.
Before this Charter amendment advances, I respectfully request answers to the following questions:
What measurable improvements has the Independent Nomination Board produced since its creation?
How many appointments have been improved because of the Board's involvement?
How many vacancies have been filled faster because of the Board?
Has the Board increased public participation in the appointment process?
Has the Board increased the number of applicants for boards and commissions?
What objective evidence exists that public confidence in government has increased because of the Board?
What metrics were established when the Board was created, and has the Board met those goals?
Has the Board reduced favoritism, or has it simply transferred appointment influence from elected officials to an unelected body?
What accountability mechanism exists when residents disagree with decisions made by the Independent Nomination Board?
How are potential conflicts of interest identified and disclosed among Board members?
Has the County conducted a formal performance review of the Board since its creation?
What is the annual administrative cost associated with operating the Independent Nomination Board?
How many appointments have been delayed as a result of the additional review process?
What evidence demonstrates that applicants selected through this process are more qualified than those selected under the previous system?
If the Board has been successful, where is the data proving that success?
While I support Resolution 26-93, I also believe the County should strengthen transparency within the appointment process itself. If the Independent Nomination Board is dissolved, residents should be able to see who applied, what qualifications applicants possess, how appointments are evaluated, and whether conflicts of interest exist.
Government should be judged by results, not intentions.
If an additional layer of government cannot demonstrate measurable value, improved outcomes, or enhanced public confidence, it should be reconsidered.
For these reasons, I respectfully support Resolution 26-93 and encourage the Committee to advance the measure for voter consideration.
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 26-93
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO SIMPLIFY THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND DISSOLVE THE INDEPENDENT NOMINATION BOARD
Chair Batangan and Members of the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, a resident of Kula, Maui, REALTOR®, and small business owner.
I am in support of Resolution 26-93, which would eliminate the Independent Nomination Board and return appointment responsibilities to the Mayor and County Council.
When voters approved the creation of the Independent Nomination Board, the public was led to believe it would increase transparency, improve the quality of appointments, reduce favoritism, encourage broader public participation, and restore confidence in government.
Several years later, I believe it is fair to ask whether those promises have been fulfilled.
In my observation, the Independent Nomination Board has not demonstrated measurable improvements in transparency, efficiency, public trust, or appointment quality. Instead, it appears to have created another layer of government bureaucracy between applicants and the elected officials who are ultimately accountable to the voters.
The public was promised independence. However, independence alone does not guarantee accountability.
An unelected board is not inherently more transparent, more qualified, or less susceptible to favoritism than elected officials. In fact, when appointment decisions are filtered through an unelected body, accountability becomes more difficult because voters cannot remove members of the Independent Nomination Board through an election.
If favoritism exists, it is not solved by moving influence from one group of decision-makers to another. Favoritism remains favoritism whether it originates from elected officials or from an unelected screening body.
The County should not maintain an additional layer of government simply because the concept sounds good. It should exist only if it produces measurable public benefits.
To date, I have not seen evidence that the Independent Nomination Board has significantly improved government performance, increased public confidence, reduced vacancies, or enhanced the quality of appointments.
Before this Charter amendment advances, I respectfully request answers to the following questions:
What measurable improvements has the Independent Nomination Board produced since its creation?
How many appointments have been improved because of the Board's involvement?
How many vacancies have been filled faster because of the Board?
Has the Board increased public participation in the appointment process?
Has the Board increased the number of applicants for boards and commissions?
What objective evidence exists that public confidence in government has increased because of the Board?
What metrics were established when the Board was created, and has the Board met those goals?
Has the Board reduced favoritism, or has it simply transferred appointment influence from elected officials to an unelected body?
What accountability mechanism exists when residents disagree with decisions made by the Independent Nomination Board?
How are potential conflicts of interest identified and disclosed among Board members?
Has the County conducted a formal performance review of the Board since its creation?
What is the annual administrative cost associated with operating the Independent Nomination Board?
How many appointments have been delayed as a result of the additional review process?
What evidence demonstrates that applicants selected through this process are more qualified than those selected under the previous system?
If the Board has been successful, where is the data proving that success?
While I support Resolution 26-93, I also believe the County should strengthen transparency within the appointment process itself. If the Independent Nomination Board is dissolved, residents should be able to see who applied, what qualifications applicants possess, how appointments are evaluated, and whether conflicts of interest exist.
Government should be judged by results, not intentions.
If an additional layer of government cannot demonstrate measurable value, improved outcomes, or enhanced public confidence, it should be reconsidered.
For these reasons, I respectfully support Resolution 26-93 and encourage the Committee to advance the measure for voter consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Edward Codelia