Council mulls options on city's legal adviser

By Gordon Y.K. Pang
Advertiser Capitol Bureau

A majority of City Council members say they're frustrated with the time it takes for the city's top legal adviser to get back to them with opinions on various issues. But they can't seem to agree with how to improve the situation.

As a result, the Council Policy Committee decided to hold off making decisions on five different proposals for amendments to the City Charter dealing with the Corporation Counsel's Office, which has been headed by David Arakawa since the end of 1996.

One proposal makes the corporation counsel position an elected one. Another plan retains the practice of having the mayor make an appointment subject to the council's approval, but amends the charter to allow council members to have the final say on his or her dismissal.

A third idea would have the mayor select the corporation counsel from a list of three submitted by the council while a fourth would require a corporation counsel to be subjected to council approval every two years instead of having a term that runs concurrent with that of the mayor. The fifth proposal combines several of the options.

The debate highlights the sensitive nature of the job of corporation counsel, who is selected by the mayor and is a key member of the mayor's cabinet. But the corporation counsel is also the chief legal adviser and legal representative for all city agencies, including the City Council.

Policy Chairman Romy Cachola said after the meeting that each of the proposals has some merit and that council members have some time before deciding which route to take, including possibly combining some of the ideas.

According to the city clerk's office, the council has until Aug. 11 to give final approval for any charter amendments it wants to place on the Nov. 2 ballot. Council members will be queried about what they want included in a "compromise" amendment that could be sent to the voters, Cachola said.

A majority of members "believe that the corporation counsel is not that responsive to requests from council members for legal opinions," Cachola said, when asked why they want to gain more control over Arakawa's office.

Councilman Gary Okino said he and colleagues want "a fair shake" from city attorneys. "There's been a feeling that opinions have been more favorable to the administration rather than the council," he said.

Arakawa said that nearly all of the proposed charter amendments call for "pretty major changes in the form of city government" that should be studied by a charter commission rather than council members.

As for the complaints that his office has been slow in responding to council requests for opinions, Arakawa said his office is "under staffing restraints and budget restraints." Further, he said, his staff makes it a point to discuss legal issues with council members so that there is no need for adverse opinions.

Complaints have arisen, he said, when council members have refused to discuss legal points. "They just want their way and they bring it to a head," he said.

He suggested council members seeking better accountability from his office could require that he be subjected to an annual review, which he suggested would be "a very powerful tool."

Arakawa further noted that the council holds broad authority over his office, including making the decisions on settlements, whom to sue, and even which attorneys to hire.

Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com or at 525-8070.