BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF MAUI SPECIAL MEETING Taken at the David Trask Building, Conference Room 207, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 11:30 a.m. on January 8, 2002 pursuant to Notice. REPORTED BY: GLORIA T. BEDIAMOL, RMR/RPR/CSR #262 IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC. A P P E A R A N C E S Members present: Peter Rice, Chair Clark Hashimoto Mike Nobriga Jonathan Starr Orlando Tagorda Kent Hiranaga Staff present: David Craddick, Director George Tengan, Deputy Director Herb Kogasaka, Engineering Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel Fran Nago, Board Secretary * * * CHAIRMAN RICE: We'll call to order the Board of Water Supply Special Meeting. It's January the 8th, 11:30 a.m. We're in the HGEA conference room 207, David Trask Building. The one item on the agenda for today's meeting is the evaluation of the director. Let me make a note for the record that there's a typo. Convened in executive session is pursuant to HRS 92-5(a)(2). It's just a typo. Present are board members Clark Hashimoto, Orlando Tagorda, Jonathan Starr, Mike Nobriga, Kent Hiranaga, Howard Nakamura, Counsel Ed Kushi, Jr., Director David Craddick, secretary Fran Nago, Gloria Bediamol our stenographer, and George Tengan. At this point, I believe we have a member of the public downstairs who is in a wheelchair, and I believe, I've been told the wheelchair ramp does not work. So we're going to recess the meeting. Bring your pens and your pads and we're going to walk downstairs and accommodate this gentleman, if he has public testimony or if he wants to say something. Then we'll recess at the end, come back up here and continue the meeting. Okay, so at this point, the meeting is recessed. Let's move downstairs. (A recess was taken.) (At which time the meeting was convened in the courtyard.) CHAIRMAN RICE: Let the record show that the board meeting was moved into the courtyard. We have testimony from Ben Zine (phonetic). I'm calling the meeting back to order. Go ahead, Ben. MR. ZINE: I've just been fortunate enough to get to know David recently on a personal basis. But I've been a resident of Maui for the last ten years and have watched county government with a great deal of interest and noticed that even through the years, he's had his distracters (sic); but he's always stayed with his nose to the job and gotten a heck of a job done here for the County of Maui, and I'm very grateful. I recently found that he lived very close to where I live in Maui up in Wailuku and we've gotten to know each other on a social basis a little bit. But that isn't the reason I'm here. The reason I'm here is because I would strongly recommend that you give due consideration to his continued employment and efforts for this county. I think we're extremely fortunate to have him on the county payroll and would hope that with due consideration you give him another few years, but particularly this year that you're under consideration for. I thank you for all the attention that you've been afforded me, particularly on short notice. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Ben. Any questions from the commissioners? Yes, Mr. Starr. MR. STARR: I just want to apologize for the inconvenience for this situation and I personally feel that the board should find a way to put ourselves in a place that's more accessible. So I feel that I'm happy that we're down here, but I feel that we're not extending you the full courtesy. MR. ZINE: This is more than I expected, let me tell you, far more than I expected, and I'm grateful. CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions or comments for Mr. Zine? Okay, then I'm going to recess the meeting and we'll move back upstairs. (At which time the board reconvened in Conference Room 207.) CHAIRMAN RICE: I'll call the meeting back to order. Mr. Craddick, we're here for one purpose today. I guess we appreciate the fact that you have not had a job description and you know we went to the trouble of creating one. And in my mind, the reason that it was absolutely essential to go through that process was that you need to know what our level of expectation is. And in my own view, I think we have -- forgetting the job description, I think there's a basic misunderstanding right up front about the relationship between the director and the board, and I think it needs to be clarified. The director works for the board. You don't have a separate agenda; you don't have a separate opinion -- I mean, you have your own opinion, which we appreciate, but there's not two voices here. There's one voice. And I know in these kinds of boards and commissions the preferred method of operation is for the board to accept policy and for the director of whatever board the commission is, is to execute that policy. But for us to feel -- and not to micromanage your duties, but for us to feel comfortable doing that, there has to be a level of trust. And I think that I've heard expressed some concerns about that particular issue, and probably more than any issue between the board and the director. It makes it hard for us to make decisions when we're second-guessing what information we get from you; so I think in communicating to you what our level of expectation is, it is that we get good information from you. And a perfect example of what I'm talking about, if it's not clear, is what went on at the last board meeting when we found for adequacy Upcountry and we had a motion to proceed as we have been proceeding in terms of the meter distribution. And the reaction we got from you was one of objections, so to speak. Now, maybe you think that there's another opinion, which is fine, and you can express what you think your opinion is of something; but in the end, unfortunately, if the board makes a decision and asks you to do something, we expect it to be done. Having said your piece at the time about whether you don't like it or whatever, you are on record and that's fine. But after that, we expect it to be done that way. We all got the feeling like, well, are we really going to see that happen or not. So that's an example of what I'm talking about in the creation of trust and understanding between the two of us. Having said that, I think that some of us -- most of us didn't fill out this evaluation form. MR. TAGORDA: I did, with my own scratches. MR. STARR: I still need to fill mine out. I didn't want to fill it out outside of the meeting. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think we ought to take a minute to fill it out and we ought to talk with David about each of the issues as we go down. I think that if people at this table have a level of expectation, having been on the board for a longer time than myself, and I have a certain level of expectation, having been on the job for the short time I've been on it, but I think we need to communicate our concerns to him, and I think we ought to go down the list. There's only 20 items on the evaluation list. What do you think, is that agreeable? MR. HIRANAGA: I have a question. Since this form, job description and evaluation form was just recently finalized, I think it's a good idea to have a review to allow him -- or to inform the director what the board thinks of his current performance, but it would not be binding or have any impact until he has sufficient time to work out any deficiencies. And then we would have another review, say, in six months or whatever, because I think it's not fair to say here's your job description, here's your evaluation -- how we're going to evaluate you, and then not be given a chance to perform based on these new documents. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. Mr. Starr? MR. STARR: I disagree with that. I feel that that's our primary duty, is to evaluate and to hire and fire the director. And if we say, oh, well, we're not going to do anything on this for six months, we're giving up our primary responsibility. It would be like giving a loaded gun and saying you can do anything you want to do, we're not going to fire you. If you are willing to -- you have six months of free ride. That's absolutely wrong. Our duty is to do just what we're talking about, which is to take action, fully evaluate and to hire or fire, and if we abrogate that duty, we're giving up our primary responsibility. So I really disagree with saying, oh, well, we won't act for six months. We're here to act, as far as I'm concerned. MR. HASHIMOTO: Peter? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Clark. MR. HASHIMOTO: I kind of agree with Kent, being there was no job description prior to this. If there are any deficiencies, I think we should give him a chance where, like you said, for maybe six months and if he doesn't meet up to expectations, then we have every right to fire or discipline or whatever it is. But I think we -- he has not had a job description, so I think it's only fair. MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes. MR. TAGORDA: I respect all your views and opinions on the evaluation of the director; however -- and also, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned about since we didn't have the chance or this board had a chance to give our director his duties and responsibilities, but you got to bear in mind when the director was hired, not by us but the previous board members, he had this county charter, this book of duties and responsibilities. You don't have to create new duties and responsibilities, it's all stated in that county charter. And to answer my colleagues here who is with me, how about board members like me who is going to be leaving in three months, and I did not have any chance to evaluate the director for almost four years, three years. What happens to my right, then? CHAIRMAN RICE: I can't help you there. MR. TAGORDA: That's the question that I have. If you say let's give him another six months, we have to set up some milestones, goals, and objectives for the director to meet our expectations and then we do something, I can't come back. CHAIRMAN RICE: First of all, I think Kent was suggesting a course of action, not a six months or anything. He was just using that as an example. But as it relates to what your rights were for four years and you did not evaluate him, I think as a board member that's up to those people who were board members at the time. Unfortunately, it did not get done; but fortunately, we're going to start doing it the right way. MR. STARR: I really don't want to abrogate our responsibility for a minute longer. I have been waiting for three years to be able to do something, and I really do feel that there are some very serious problems with this situation, and credibility and truthfulness are at the heart of them and those are things that are inherent in any position of employment. When a board gets half-truths or mistruths (sic), or things are done in such a way to circumvent the will of the board, which, in my opinion, has been going on, and that's something very, very basic and very inherent in the whole structure. We're talking about the public trust and our ability to govern to insure the public trust is obeyed. So I don't feel putting it off, although it may be the easy thing and it may be something to let us off the hook for a hard decision for a while, I really don't think that it's a right thing to do. And if we do put it off, well, let's put it off for a shorter time as possible. I especially feel that Board Member Tagorda, who will be leaving the board this year, should have the opportunity to participate in the ultimate process. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nakamura? MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I also had at one point the same kind of thought that Mr. Hiranaga had; however, as I went through the duties and responsibilities in the new job description, it did occur to me that most of these things are pretty evident. There's nothing in here that is really unusual. If we were to evaluate him because he didn't come up with a program to desalinate sea water, I can see that you can argue that, well, he did not know that that's what he was supposed to do. But most of these things, I think, are pretty self-evident from the charter or from some other source. I didn't see anything in here that I thought was really out of the ordinary. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. I think at this point we need to proceed with the evaluation. As we go through that, we can decide what course of action we want to take. MR. STARR: Before we do this, I would like to defer to counsel and understand with the way -- what the framework within the way the meeting was noticed; what our, at least, legal opportunities and options are. And I also believe that the director is usually offered the opportunity to have the process done either in executive session or in public. So I think we should -- can we get a hearing from counsel? MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, Board Member Starr, my understanding is that in situations like this we always put in a notice on the agenda that this meeting may be subject to an executive session, and the correct section of HRS 92-5, and in this case Subparagraph A, Sub Subparagraph 2. Which, for the record, let me state, A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Section 92-4 for one or more of the following reasons. Paren 2, to consider the hire, evaluation, dismissal, or discipline of an officer or employee or of charges brought against the officer or employee where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved, provided that if the individual concerned requests an open meeting, an open meeting shall be held. So that's the procedure, as I see it, of your agenda item. Now, for the record, my understanding is that the director, Mr. Craddick specifically, is requesting an open meeting. Is that my understanding? MR. CRADDICK: Unless they want to talk about the staff members, that is my preference, yes. MR. STARR: Does that mean staff members other than yourself? MR. CRADDICK: Yes. Or if I have to explain something that involves them. MR. KUSHI: My understanding is that if it's discussions concerning his position, he has the incumbent -- has the right to request an opening meeting. If it involves any of his subordinates, he is requesting them to be held in executive session. MR. CRADDICK: Yes. MR. KUSHI: But then again, the executive meeting needs to be voted on by two-thirds of the majority. The other situation may be -- there's also Section 92-5(a), Subparagraph 4, which says that an executive meeting may be held to consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities. That doesn't have a provision where the incumbent or the employee involved has a right to require an open meeting. But again, that needs to be voted on by this board. MR. STARR: I just wanted to be clear, and please correct me on any one of them if I'm misstate them. But it's my understanding that the director is requesting that this be done in open session as long as it's pertaining to him and not to other -- not to matters critiquing or discussing other members of the staff. MR. CRADDICK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RICE: Go ahead. MR. STARR: One other comment. We have the job description, job summary, and I noticed on the bottom of it there's a place for an employee's signature. I'm just wondering whether this has been -- I know the board accepted it; I am wondering if the director has signed off on it. CHAIRMAN RICE: No. Is there a reason for that? MR. CRADDICK: There's still a lot of errors and things in it that don't make sense. CHAIRMAN RICE: Wait, wait, we had a discussion of this in a board meeting at which time you made no comments about inaccuracies. MR. CRADDICK: I was not given a whole lot of chance to make comments on it. I'll give you an example. CHAIRMAN RICE: Give me an example. MR. CRADDICK: It says here, has a detailed knowledge of all county water agreements. Now, I presume you are talking about the Board of Water Supply; but I'm not certain because I certainly don't have a detailed knowledge of all the county water agreements. CHAIRMAN RICE: I don't see that as relevant at this point. If we think that you should, then you should. If you don't, then you should get that, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in there. If there's something that you don't do currently, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the job description. What's in the job description is what we think is important and we voted on it. If there's something that's inaccurate in terms of a word in here or something else, I want to hear about it. But that's not inaccurate. That's what we think is important. MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I believe what's happening is he is trying to make a mockery of this process and this is -- CHAIRMAN RICE: I just want to hear what other issues there are before we go forward. That's a nonissue, as far as I'm concerned. MR. STARR: Okay. MR. CRADDICK: Another item here, it says, responsible for timely billing and collection of water fees. I presume you mean rates there, because we don't bill for fees. Responsible for any and all state and federal regulations of the water department, and I presume, there again, you mean applicable to the water department. And there's just some words that -- it says adequately staffed to insure that all areas of the Department of Water Supply are adequately staffed, and I have some questions about that. But I think I understand what that means there. CHAIRMAN RICE: I don't see anything that makes it -- gives me concern to go forward with the evaluation. I mean -- MR. CRADDICK: I don't think so either. CHAIRMAN RICE: Maybe slash water fees, rates. Small words in there, but the essence of the description has not changed. And staffing -- MR. CRADDICK: That's my feeling also. CHAIRMAN RICE: Then we'll move forward. Mr. Starr? MR. STARR: I would be much more comfortable if he would accept the job description that had been passed by the board after very, very lengthy discussions. It's been going from meeting after meeting after meeting. He seen it; he actually participated in some of the wording. If he is not willing to sign off on it, that itself is an act of insubordination and it also is disrespectful, as well as basically trying to create some kind of legal out for him that he can use later to sue us if he doesn't like the outcome of the process. So I feel that if he's going to be continuing to work for us, once we've created this job description and he did not speak up, he should sign off on the thing, especially if we're going to process these questionnaires that are based on it. I would like to see that happen; I would like to see him say either he will sign off on it or not sign off on it, but not quibble about some semantic language. MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Tagorda. MR. TAGORDA: I will be brief. Let's not fight over some typo, I think. In our county charter, Section 8-11.4, power and duties and functions of the board, it states clear in there without condition, that the Board of Water Supply shall appoint, evaluate, and remove their director of the Department of Water Supply. There's no conditions stated there. It's so clear. So whether he signs off or not or you remove those wordings, billings, and things like that, it has no basis; it's irrelevant to our evaluating the director. So this, he can put the signature or not. We still have the power to evaluate him, remove him, and dismiss or -- according to the county charter. It's simple wording. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think we all understand that. What we're trying to do is we're trying to go through the process the way it should have been done in the beginning. If we were hiring a new director, you would do this before they started work. And I think that the condition of Mr. Craddick's employment, it's not an option. I don't think this is an option, "I don't like your job description." Then your option is you don't take the job. It's not, "I don't like the job description, I want to change it." So it's not an option, this is the job description. MR. STARR: That's right. He can vote with his feet. CHAIRMAN RICE: That's right. So when you hire somebody you say, "Here's the job description, do you want the job?" They say yes or no. That's the end of the story. It's not, "I'm going to change this word." They're not; therefore, this is the job description that was voted on. There were no comments made at the time of the meeting. If there are typos -- I believe we made a comment that if there were typos or those kinds of things, that they will be fixed and they didn't substantially change the intent or the job description. And nothing that has been brought up so far by Mr. Craddick changes the intent or this job description in a material way. So let's move forward. MR. STARR: Do we have a comment from counsel on this as well? I believe we have created a binding document. MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure at what meeting and how you -- I was not here. I have not had a chance to review your minutes. But in theory, I would agree with the general purpose that since the board has the oversight of this position by charter, you can create -- or you should have created a set of duties and responsibilities in a job description a long time ago. But that being the case, you have done it and I would agree that it's not for the incumbent to dispute what's on it; but again, in all fairness, not withstanding what Commissioner Tagorda said, not withstanding what the charter says, there's also a theory in law called "wrongful termination." You can't hire and fire, especially fire anyone for anything; you need some sort of cause. Even if you have the authority, the power. You understand what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes. MR. KUSHI: As long as it's based on some set of guidelines. If it's a situation where an incumbent has a new set of job duties, like Commissioner Nakamura said about desalination, he doesn't know about it, you can't fault him -- fire him for not knowing about it. You see what I'm saying? MR. STARR: If the board creates a job description which basically is based on current practice and duties and on the charter, and then if the director says that he will not subscribe to those, isn't that reason for termination in itself? MR. KUSHI: It may be. I can't say it definitely will be, but it may be. And like anything else, your directors may be challenged and no matter what the board says, if the board directs an employee to break the law, what is the employee going to do? MR. STARR: I don't think we're doing that. MR. KUSHI: I'm saying that's the situation where you should be very careful. MR. STARR: I think we were very careful in creating this. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nobriga? MR. NOBRIGA: I employ about 65 people. Although I have been officially president and general manager of my company for only three to four short years, I have been entrusted with its operation for over 12 years. I have to side with corporation counsel in dealing with personnel matters. It is different, very different in the private sector versus government sector, and we need to be cognizant of those differences. There is such a thing as wrongful termination, like anything. The meeting is noticed to evaluate the director. I find the discussions so far interesting, but it does not do anything for us on the notice of the objective of the meeting about evaluating the director. So I suggest that we try and get on with evaluating the director, instead of getting caught up in all this rhetoric. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick? MR. CRADDICK: I would like to say that I did participate in the process in you arriving at the position description; I am familiar with it. And as you say, the clarifications are not so substantial that it would invalidate the process that you've arrived at. And in fact, I'm quite happy of the process. It's the first time a process like this has occurred for the evaluation. And knowing Mr. Tagorda's time on the board and his inability to have a chance to participate in many evaluations, and also the newer board members, that always occurs with the newer board members where the information that they have available is not as much as the older board members; but I don't see anything that extraordinary out of the position description that isn't already done, so I don't have any hesitation about going through with the process. I just -- if you know, I had brought this up to you approximately a month ago, the fact that this was not signed and you said it would be taken care of at some point. I would presume that there would be some submittal to me to sign it. But I'm not at all in doubt or have any doubt that this is the position description the board wants fulfilled and I have no problem in fulfilling it. MR. STARR: Can I request the director if he subscribes to it, that he signs it so the whole matter becomes moot? CHAIRMAN RICE: That's a condition of his employment. MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes. MR. HIRANAGA: Just for my clarification on this process. We're going to score this evaluation between 1 and 5. Is it then the average is going to be taken for each director whose average will be combined with the other directors to come up with an average score? Is that the process? If the average score comes out 2.5, which is halfway between adequate and competent, someone has to call for the vote as to whether -- CHAIRMAN RICE: I think the process is to do the evaluation and when we're done with the evaluation, the board can decide if and when any action it wants to take based on that evaluation. I think that's the process. MR. HIRANAGA: There is no automatic action based upon the score that's derived? CHAIRMAN RICE: No. I think the score is being used to measure the performance. And I think as Orlando points out, the performance could be somewhere between adequate and competent, and the board could still elect to discharge Mr. Craddick. That's well within their powers subject to whatever the right reason for the discharge is. But the reason we started the process and the reason why you have a job description and you have an evaluation with an employee is to communicate your level of expectation. At this time we have got a job description. I think it's clear at this point, for the record, that the job description clearly outlines the job duties of the director. So we need to tell him how we think he's doing based on those 20 different items. You may say okay. You may say not okay, because you've had more experience. And Kent may say okay, he's had limited experience. And that's why we're having this together. At the end, Mr. Craddick knows what we think about his performance as it relates to each of those things and we can total up the number, and then we can decide if and when anything that we want to do. Okay? Agreed? MR. NOBRIGA: Okay. CHAIRMAN RICE: Shall we move? MR. CRADDICK: May I ask one more question. Is there any chance in the process where I have some chance to respond? CHAIRMAN RICE: Every item you're going to have a chance to respond to. Absolutely. That's why you are here. It would do us no good to flog ourselves over each of the items and not give you a chance to respond. It doesn't mean we would agree with your response. We'll start with the top. Has a thorough understanding of the water resource and systems of Maui County. Nodding of heads. MR. TAGORDA: Just go one by one. CHAIRMAN RICE: Yeah. You can say okay, pass, go. You got something to say? MR. TAGORDA: I score a 3. Do we do that? MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, we'll discuss each item and then subsequently we'll plug in our -- CHAIRMAN RICE: I think you should plug in your own first. MR. HIRANAGA: What if I learn something new in the discussion? MR. NOBRIGA: Change 'em. CHAIRMAN RICE: Change 'em. This is not a perfect system, and we all are going to have -- and anytime there's a board, there will be different levels of experience with the director. So you have to grade it based on your experience. I think -- we all know you just started. MR. HIRANAGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RICE: But this is a chance for board members to communicate to Mr. Craddick what they think and for he to respond if it's appropriate. Okay? Do you want to say anything on that, Orlando? MR. TAGORDA: I have a few comments. Technical knowledge, very commendable, and no doubt knows water business and the system of Maui County well. I would make him competent. CHAIRMAN RICE: Anything to say? MR. STARR: I feel he is adequate on his knowledge of the water systems. I don't think that he projects it well to others. But I feel that's a place where he has a -- MR. NOBRIGA: What about Clark? CHAIRMAN RICE: He passed. MR. NOBRIGA: Sorry. MR. HASHIMOTO: I think he has a real good understanding of the water systems resources here on Maui, as far as I can see. CHAIRMAN RICE: Orlando? MR. TAGORDA: I just said my piece. CHAIRMAN RICE: I don't know who's the oldest or youngest but -- MR. NAKAMURA: I have no comment on that one. MR. NOBRIGA: From my experience with David at public hearings especially, I would rate David a 4 on his knowledge of the resources available. Or commendable. MR. HIRANAGA: No comment. MR. NAKAMURA: I tend to agree with Mr. Nobriga, I think one of David's major strengths is probably his technical understanding of the resources and the systems. CHAIRMAN RICE: The chair is also of that opinion. Mr. Craddick, you want to say anything on your knowledge of water resources and Maui County? MR. CRADDICK: I would say I definitely have an understanding of water resources in the county; but again, this says systems of Maui County, and again presuming you are talking about the Board of Water Supply system, I definitely don't know -- have the level of understanding of other water systems that I do in our own water system. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think we expect you to know our water system. To the extent that you can obtain knowledge about others, that's great, but that's not certainly going to be held that much against you. Adequately administers the affairs of the department and provides leadership in meeting and exceeding the water needs of Maui County. MR. HASHIMOTO: I think he is competent in administering the affairs of the department. He has a lot of -- the staff under him that I think works well with him, so I think it's more than adequate. MR. TAGORDA: Based on my experience with the director, I think he has dealt with a few items, but most of it have not been done in a timely manner. The department has still failed to adequately address the Upcountry problem up to now and I've been here almost five years. CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Starr. MR. TAGORDA: I would give him at least 1. MR. STARR: I gave him a 1. I would have given him a zero if it was possible. As far as providing leadership in meeting and exceeding the water needs of Maui County, we have been short Upcountry for years and we're about to run out of water in Central. And he provides flimflam to the public and confuses them and doesn't provide a path and direction toward really solving problems and moving ahead. In fact, I feel the board has been trying to do that almost in spite of the director. He gets the lowest number I can give there. MR. NOBRIGA: Okay. In light of this videotaping going on, I would like to ask Mr. Craddick if he continues to hold his view on having this in open session. MR. CRADDICK: I don't mind. That's fine. I think the record speaks for itself as far as my recommendation to the board to get going on a well in Pookela in September of 1999, and until this year, the board has chosen, for whatever reason, to not do that. MR. NOBRIGA: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN RICE: Anything else you want to say? MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah. Primarily because of our inability to satisfy the people Upcountry on the waiting list, or lack of ability to get information to take care of the Ulupalakua system, or inability as a board to act on decision to extend water service to Kanaio, and our participation in a series of meetings on East Maui about stream flow restoration, I rate the director marginal. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. MR. HIRANAGA: I rate him as adequate. MR. NAKAMURA: In the area of administration and leadership, I also feel that the director has been adequate. But perhaps, in my mind, barely. CHAIRMAN RICE: In the chair's opinion, the director -- I have not had a lot of experience with the employees in terms of leadership inside the department. We see that there appears to be a good relationship with the division heads. But I think this is one issue that goes to the crux of what I mentioned in the beginning. To me, leadership quality is you know what needs to be done and you get the board to rally around you, and for some reason that's not happening. And I think that's a key issue in management of the day-to-day affairs -- the affairs of the department. I don't know if the leader should be Mr. Craddick. I'm not sure that happens and I rate it adequate. Administers and enforces the rules and regulations adopted by -- MR. HASHIMOTO: He has a comment. CHAIRMAN RICE: Sorry. Thank you, Clark. MR. CRADDICK: Well, I myself feel that the business and day-to-day affairs of the department, I provide relatively strong leadership over the management of the water system under the control of the board. Rules and regulations of the board are applied in a fair and impartial manner and I make sure the staff does likewise. Now, as far as getting sources on line, it would be nice to know what the board feels is an adequate level of service, because you run a fine line between the resources you have and the amount of excess capacity that you can have available to you without running out of money. So it would be nice to get clarification of what you feel is an adequate level of resources that we're not currently using for the system. And I can provide that to the board of what I feel the level of service is that is necessary. But hopefully the board would not pin 23 years of inaction by the county for Upcountry Maui on my shoulders. I'm just hoping that isn't the case. Because I tell you, I have bent over backwards trying to get water for Upcountry. Quite frankly, there's a large segment of the community that when you talk to them they are quite happy with the water service Upcountry, and I suspect that that's why the system has remained inadequate as long as it has. Because there is a large segment of the community that is very happy to have it the way it is, because they know it controls growth. And the board has had varying levels on that. I realize now the board is unified in going ahead and getting water for Upcountry, so I don't see us turning back anymore to the past 23 years. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. Number 3, administers and enforces the rules and regulations adopted by the board. MR. HASHIMOTO: I think for this point, a lot of times I guess the director has been at odds with the board and sometimes maybe not following what the board instructed. So I give him an adequate. MR. TAGORDA: Again, in the implementations of the department rules and regulations, I believe it's not uniform; there are a lot of inequities that still exist at this time. You can see that from people who comes and talk to the board. So that's why -- I think that's why a lot of this public outcry happens outside, because of those inequities that's being implemented. So I write the director in the implementation of the rules and regulations to be 1, because of all these inequities that we experience when we have meetings when they do come to talk to us. MR. STARR: I also rate him a 1. I wish there was a lower mark for this. I feel that the rules have been implemented in a very strange fashion and not in an equal fashion to all people. I got a lot of complaints from people in the community who feel that they have been abused, and I don't feel that the director has taken the rules and regulations and tried to create a level playing field for all of our water users. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nobriga? MR. NOBRIGA: The director's administration of the rules and regulations I find difficult to quantify. When we were appointed to this board, the director was very knowledgeable and knew that the current rules were kind of broken. In fact, when we came on, an attempt to amend the rules had just failed a county council and it came back to the board. Over the course of the last two and a half years, nothing definite or helpful was worked on to help us in our rules and regulations until just this past couple of months after we kind of almost enacted this set of documents that we're working off of today. I still remain very critical of the director's decision in moving forward with the Dowling project and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; basically because there was a declared emergency in effect and we still were sitting on system inadequacy at the time these two developments came on line. So as far as that was concerned, to me, as an innocent bystander, it seemed that the director did not follow and enforce the rules and regulations of the board. I give Mr. Craddick a number of 1, a marginal for that item. MR. HIRANAGA: My experience on this item, I'm assuming that the department's performance is a reflection of the director's performance, and I feel that -- or suggest to the director that he work with his staff to help them improve their ability to communicate with the public, be it training classes, seminars. I think a lot of his personnel staff needs to learn to communicate more clearly to the public. As far as the enforcement of the rules and regs, I think the rules and regs need to be updated. So it's been difficult for him to, at times, interpret and administer and enforce. So I think we're on that road of trying to update the rules and regs to make them more applicable to the conditions we're experiencing now. So I gave the director a 2, adequate. MR. NAKAMURA: I had the same rating. I have a sense that in some cases the rules are not consistently applied and there does seem to be a certain level of confusion and uneasiness in the community about the implementation and the enforcement of the rules. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. I think there's clearly a sentiment in the public that the rules are not fairly enforced, or that favors are given out. I said there's a sentiment, but whether it's true or it's not true, the fact that there is a sentiment, and I think it's a strong sentiment, it directly relates to your operation of the department. As a person controlling water in Maui County, the last thing you want to have happen is that the public thinks that there's some preferential treatment given to some and non-treatment given to others. And I think that's -- like I said, whether it's true or not, you talk to people and they say this happens, that happens; frankly, I don't have the time to look into every single issue. But the fact that they think that, that is disturbing, and I think it relates to how things are managed, unfortunately. I would grade him a 1, marginal. Manges the day-to-day operations of the Maui water systems. MR. HASHIMOTO: Did you let him respond? CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you. MR. CRADDICK: I have to appreciate Mr. Nobriga's comments on getting some rules to the board; but the whole package of rules were presented to the board from corp counsel, and the board has yet to act on those. So I am not sure how much more I'm supposed to do. When we said we were going to do this back in 1998, we went to the board, the board had no comments; we went to the council, the council had no comments. And if you just want us to prepare a set of rules, that can and will be done. But it certainly helps, as the board chairman said, to have some understanding of where the board wants to go. Because there's no sense in -- we prepared a rule, the availability of water for developments, because I believe that's one of the toughest areas that Howard is talking about, how to fairly apply the rules. And we tell people that are going to use more than about 120,000 gallons a day that they have to participate with us in developing source. Now, I would have to say that there's no rule that allows us to do that. There's no rule that allows us to do that. When we tried to pass a rule like that, the mayor said we were stepping in for the planning department. But it is critical for people to know at what point they must participate with us to develop source or have an awful lot more water on standby for giving out to whoever comes in and wants water. But beyond that, I have a tough time dealing with these things without being more specific on what it is. And somebody says it's not fair. I know a few people have called me up and actually said our staff was taking money on things and we have done investigations on that. So if anybody comes to you and says anything to you, I would appreciate it very much if you would let me know so we can investigate what's going on, because I do not tolerate anybody not treating everyone fairly. Now, it does make it very difficult for us when we tell somebody that they have to go to the point of adequacy, and the point of adequacy, by the way, has to be out on the road fronting your property, and you have to bring it there, and a large segment of the community does that. But if you don't want to do it and you come to the board, generally you get away without it, it creates an atmosphere of unfairness that simply by coming to the board you will get away with that sort of thing. And I know I have heard a number of people bringing that issue up and I can certainly provide you with names, if you want me to, on that item. But beyond that, I will work with the rules committee on trying to get the rules changed, and if nobody has any comments on that prior to doing it, I can do it; but it will mean the elimination of all rules regarding subdivision and just deal with water service and the system adequacy to get that service. CHAIRMAN RICE: Next? MR. HASHIMOTO: Day-to-day operations. I guess we have been focusing more on the Upcountry system; the adequacies of the Upcountry system, Ulupalakua, Kanaio, that's a tough one. But when you look at the overall, I think he is doing a competent job. CHAIRMAN RICE: Orlando? MR. TAGORDA: Like I said again, I don't know why is it every time I have to say something about our director's performance I kind of sigh; I kind of don't have the energy. Because like I said, if I talk to him and follow up things that's been happening all over the County of Maui, I'll probably whimper. He is probably going to say where is that, what happened, this and that. I have seen a lot of not proper things happening with employees of the Department of Water Supply. It's no good for me to bring out those dirt, and for him to go after those guys. You knew there is -- something is really wrong. A lot of times -- I work in the field, a lot of times I see white truck, county water supply under the tree, for how long I don't know. Those things, it bothers me sometimes as a board member. So, there you go. I gave him a 1 with the day-to-day operations. I think -- I don't know how long you attend meetings or you are in your office, I think monitoring of the projects by you should be done, not from your division heads and all of that. You follow up things. A lot of things are not being monitored by you. MR. STARR: I also give him a 1 here. I feel that the management style is crises management. It is to all of a sudden run after a problem with a lot of resources to try to put out the fire rather than making real plans and programs and going after things systematically. We still have a lot of pipeline problems, but there's no real systematic plan to fix them. I know some employees, and I have heard that there is certainly a lot of morale and other problems inside the department. I just don't feel that what is happening is a systematic step-by-step type of management that is cost efficient and effective. It's rather a running-after-the-problem, cover-your-butt type of approach, and I think that the department suffers from this. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. MR. NOBRIGA: The management of day-to-day operations. And I think the items should read Maui County Board of Water Supply systems. I don't feel as a manager -- I'm listening to my colleagues, and I say wow, I have a totally opposite view. I think David spends too much time managing day to day. I don't feel as a manager he is supposed to be doing that kind of stuff. I get the feeling that he protects or buffers the department heads from us, the board, a little too much, and that might just be his management style. I realize he is entrusted with the day-to-day operations, but I don't think that's his real job as the manager of our department. I gave him adequate. MR. HIRANAGA: Manges the day-to-day operations. My interpretation of that criteria is that he provides safe drinking water to the public at a reasonable level of service. I rated him competent. MR. NAKAMURA: I think, as far as I'm concerned, the day-to-day operations, it's not an area that I feel really knowledgeable about. But I think that although I would have some concerns about some of the issues raised by some of the colleagues regarding planning and those kinds of issues, and nevertheless, on a daily basis, I feel that the performance is competent or adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: As far as my opinion and as I often do, I think there is some right in what everybody said. I think Mike brings up a good point in that if we had the director doing every day-to-day things, we wouldn't get a lot of the good planning things done that we need. But I think there is a need, as Mr. Starr brings up, for a system of management so that the people down below who are responsible for the guy who is sleeping under the tree somewhere, which reminds me of -- I can't say it on TV -- of another operation that was a characteristic of that. Those people who are the subordinates of you, David, who are supposed to be managing those people on a day-to-day basis are not doing their job. And not that it's supposed to be your job, but the system through which they manage it reflects on you. I think my rating was adequate. Response? MR. CRADDICK: I myself have been aware of the problem with the knowledge of where the vehicles are for some time, and I did propose an item into the budget next year, I guess it will be reproposed this year. It's fairly expensive. But what happens is you've got a few bad eggs in the basket and what is it worth to get those few bad eggs out of the basket. I believe we have done a fairly good job this year on some of the people that are no longer working with us. I believe that has changed morale within the department since those changes, but I realize more can be done in that area. MR. HASHIMOTO: Do I have to go first all the time? CHAIRMAN RICE: Next page we'll change. You'll have to change your seat. MR. HASHIMOTO: Prepares and implements long-range capital improvement plans. I think for me as a board member, I don't think I know the system as well as I think David and his staff. Although there's a lot of capital improvements that is needed, I'm sure they have it in their plans. But as far as I'm concerned, I rely on David and the staff to provide us with information on whatever we need on capital improvements and things. And if you listen to the radio, every day Honolulu has water-main breaks all over the place. I think Maui County is doing -- I think they're doing a competent job, as far as I'm concerned. MR. TAGORDA: As far as preparing and implementing a long-range capital improvement plan, I believe this was -- there was a plan when I started in '97 that goes all the way to 2002. You remember the rate increase, David, when you go out in the public and you told them so much money is going to -- a treatment plant, transmission line replacement, and things like that, those were the capital improvement plan, the long-range plan by the department. But I'm not too sure whether those were really implemented accordingly, two years of completion. I think it was being pushed back up to present. Because I would question, David, how much was earmarked for just one item, the transmission line, how many millions from '97 to 2002. I believe, if I recall right, the department of the board should have expended 22 million, earmarked 22 million for pipeline replacement. But if you go back, I think that money has not been expended to repair or to replace those transmission lines where they are needed most. So I think we failed here greatly. MR. STARR: I don't think there's a real long-range capital improvement plan. I think that our way of managing the capital improvement is still to create a bunch of pots of money and then go to pick something that might sort of fit, but not to have a real system for prioritizing and for budgeting for them. So I again give the lowest grade of 1. MR. NOBRIGA: I learned recently that there is an extensive long-range capital improvement plan at a finance committee meeting where we were talking about a project that was slated in excess of seven or eight years down the road and that's why there was no figures for it and this and that. So kind of by accident I stumbled upon the plan. So I know the department has one and the director probably has a lot to do with it, but because of the communication back to us what it was, I have to give him a 1. MR. HIRANAGA: Long-range planning, that's always a very interesting subject. I guess my philosophy on long-range planning is that the board should give the department guidance on general goals that we wish to fulfill, and then he would prepare a long-range capital improvement plan to satisfy those goals. This is a plan, so the plan could be revised every year. To me, I don't believe the department should come to us and say that this is our plan. I think the board should say we want to take care of this inadequacy in the next three years; we want to take care of this region in the next five years, then they would come back to us with a capital improvement plan to satisfy those needs. That's the way I look at planning, is the board has to give them goals, and then they figure out ways to satisfy those goals. I gave him a 3, because at this point we have not given him goals, specific goals, that I'm aware of, that the board wants to accomplish. MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, my comments encompass probably this item as well as the next item. I believe that this whole issue of long-range planning and the implementation of the plan is kind of the crux of our problem. And I believe that either we don't have a plan, or if we have a plan it's not being adequately communicated. If you recall, it was the board that initiated a strategic plan; it was the board that initiated the reserve study at the last meeting. The board expressed a desire to come up with some kind of a system which would permit it to prioritize improvements. All of these areas, I think, are lacking. The water use and development plan issue, granted it's bogged down with all of the things that are happening at the state level; but nevertheless, it would certainly seem as though we could be moving ahead a little bit more effectively. And so I really feel that the planning effort has been significantly lacking and this is an area where I would include both of those ratings as marginal. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think I'm just going to address the capital improvement plan. I note, having sat on the finance/capital improvement committee, we have this huge database, maybe people think that's a plan, but all it is, is a database. I don't understand necessarily where we're going. And a good example was the last meeting where we had a few projects that came up that we wanted approval for and Mr. Starr asked a good question as to why we were doing this segment first and not these two segments, and there should have been an answer. If there was a plan, it would have been here's the reason why, because this is how we're planning it. I think that's a perfect example. If there is a plan, not a list of projects to do, but a plan on how we're going to systematically proceed through the capital improvements, then I'm not aware of that. Rebuttal? MR. CRADDICK: I guess our plan, we had to come up with a plan in 1993 prior to going in for a rate increase and we did come up with a plan that the board signed off on. Out of that, we did finally get a rate increase in 1997 that envisioned spending $22 million on pipeline replacement. All of that was to be debt funded. At this point, we have issued $10 million in bonds and we got another 7.9 million in bonds in the revolving loan fund program. So we're $4 million short on the funding that is available to do the projects. So of course they're not all done because we don't have all the money. But I believe that pipeline replacement program was included in each person's packet; I don't know about Kent's when they came on the board. We'll go over that again and refresh the board members memory's on that. Basically, we have so many inadequate lines just for normal basic fire protection and there are a lot of health and safety issues out there. And that's the program right now, is to get rid of those lines that are health and safety issues. At that point, perhaps a different plan can be arrived at. But that is the plan, to my knowledge, that the board has agreed with and -- CHAIRMAN RICE: When you say "that the board has agreed with," you mean in the 1993 plan? MR. CRADDICK: Right. Right. As far as the water use and development plan goes, I see that more as a plan for expanding the water system. I don't know what the board members know about that; but in the Maui County Code it requires an update of the water use and development plan every time the general plan is updated. Since the 1990 water use and development plan and the 1990 general plan, there has been no update of the community plan. There is a meeting to convene this group; the first meeting will be this week Friday. The mayor is convening it. The other nuances with the changes with the water commission and what they want will all be taken into account at that point. But for myself, we have a valid water use and development plan, and the community plan, general plan, anyways, has not been updated since it was approved. CHAIRMAN RICE: Not to dwell on this, but this is why I think we get frustrated. So we have this '93 plan, then you tell us that the plan is to replace all these substandard systems and lines. But Howard, correct me if I'm wrong, during the last two budget processes where we talked about capital improvements, I don't remember somebody saying, well, based on this plan we did in '93, these five projects are to continue or complete that. Because I think then we would have known about the plan and it would make approval of things and the systematic following of what we're doing much easier. I may have missed it, but I don't know. MR. NAKAMURA: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, we just heard there was a plan that was made in '93 and it was solely to convince the council to give us rates. It was kind of to hoodwink them into believing there is some method to this madness. Last week at our meeting we had items before us where we spend a million dollars out in Hamoa for eight millionaires' houses, and another million dollars down in Makena for six millionaires' houses. And when asked why we're doing these projects, Well, someone put some pressure on to do it, I'm not sure who. I mean, this is not systematic; there's no plan here. Excuse me, but I'm emotional about this. CHAIRMAN RICE: You want to say something? MR. CRADDICK: He's right. When board members step in or council members step in, it does interrupt the plans. And granted, it's not currently sitting board members; but when somebody steps in and says -- what happened in the Hana case was somebody came to the board, board gave a waiver, the board said fix this line up, move it up. That's exactly what we did. CHAIRMAN RICE: Let's take a quick break. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm assuming everyone likes the process that we're going through and we'll continue it. Why don't we just pick up the pace slightly. Back in order. Water use and development -- prepares and implements a current water use and development plan. MR. HASHIMOTO: I think -- CHAIRMAN RICE: Howard already started. MR. NAKAMURA: I already made my comments on this. MR. HASHIMOTO: I'll give him an adequate on that. MR. TAGORDA: Where are you? Which one? CHAIRMAN RICE: Water use and development plan. MR. TAGORDA: Water use and development plan. Okay, I never have seen one since I became a board member. Except that Lanai water use and development plan. I think under this operation committee, we tried to tackle this and approve it. Right? MR. STARR: We started working on it. MR. TAGORDA: Yes. MR. STARR: I don't think we're adequate here. I think there's been confusion over whether there really is one intact, and I, for one, don't know whether we have a water use and development plan, even though I'm in possession of both alleged plan documents. Because there was a 1990 water use and development plan that was passed, and then it was found to have some very major structural flaws, and it never -- so a new plan was written in 1991. And the new plan in 1991 was supposed to correct the flaws of the 1990 plan. And there are very different numbers in there in terms of water use and also in terms of numbers relating to Iao aquifer and the way of calculating the sustainable yield thereof. It was quite different in the 1990 plan. The 1990 plan was never passed and accepted. So whether the 1990 plan is still legally intact or not, no one seems to know. So that was shortly after the current director came into office, and from that point on he's not managed to get a water use and development plan in force. So we recently started on the process. We're starting in Lanai where we don't have any water system. To me, that's hopeless. He should have made sure that we had an intact water use and development plan ten years ago and we still don't have one today. So I don't see how you could hit any worse on that one. MR. NOBRIGA: I know we have one currently, but it is time for review. I know as a board we took action and we authorized budget and some contracts were reviewed, and had this evaluation been done probably next year, I would give him a higher mark, but because it's right at limbo, I have to give Mr. Craddick a 1. MR. HIRANAGA: I'll judge him as adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nakamura? MR. NAKAMURA: As I mentioned, this is an area that's marginal. CHAIRMAN RICE: I have rated it marginal. I believe it's something that should have been in place and I'm happy with moving forward on it. MR. CRADDICK: Sorry for smiling here, but you had the chance there when Howard brought up the water use and development plan and I responded. There is an in-place water use and development plan whether you know it or not. And it's based on the 1990 general community -- general plan, and it says right in the Maui County Ordinance that when the general plan is changed, then a new water use and development plan will be done. And as I told you, the mayor is convening that group beginning this week Friday. So as far as the requirements -- and that plan was approved by the council; approved by the water commission. It doesn't require approval by the board of the water commission. Since then, an ordinance has been passed by the county that makes the Board of Water Supply responsible for doing the water use and development plan. And as was stated, the state has kind of changed in what they expect to see out of the plan. All the 1991 plans that were submitted by every single county were rejected. And I believe if you talk with the water commission right now, they will say that we're further along than any county in redoing the water use and development plan. But again, without a county plan to base it on, what is it that we're really doing. Whoever has made the comment that there is a little confusion here is exactly correct. Because as far as we're concerned, we're the furthest ahead of anybody in the State of Hawaii in preparing a water use and development plan that will be acceptable to the water commission, and we do have a current plan in place. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. Annual operating and capital budget. MR. HASHIMOTO: I think, as far as, I guess, Mike Quinn is the one that does this. As far as staff, I think they have been doing a good job on it and I give him competent. MR. TAGORDA: I gave him 3 on this item. I think he has a well-trained staff and they need to be recognized and they do a very good job every year. I gave him 3. MR. STARR: I gave him a 1. Once again we realize in this last budget process that we're operating at a deficit of somewhere between 4- and $6 million. We have gone from $50 million in the bank to 60 million in debt over the tenure of the director. Any corporation operating that way would not be in business any longer. Once again I don't see how this could be any worse. Our current budget has a footnote in it saying that we should be allocating $4 million or more towards maintaining the system, but we can't afford to do it. So all it is, is a footnote saying that it should be there, but our system is further deteriorating every year. MR. NOBRIGA: I grade him as adequate because of the way the budget operates to the two previous issues. That's all, I'm done. MR. HIRANAGA: I guess until I become more familiar with the upgrading in the capital budget process and also having a chance to review the year-end variances between actuals and budgets, I'm prepared to rate him as competent. MR. NAKAMURA: I also have rated this as an area of competence. As far as the actual preparation and submittal of the budget, it is done in a timely basis. I think we can debate the issue of whether or not it really does what we want it to do; but in terms of the actual preparation and submittal, as I said, it is being done. I rated it as competent. I think the fiscal officer, Mr. Quinn, is doing a good job. That's one of our stronger areas. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think this is a good example of when we have a good department head. I rated it as competent also. I think the fiscal management -- I have been in finance committees since I started. I have always been impressed with the steps that are being taken by Mr. Quinn. And that's it. CHAIRMAN RICE: Manages the department according to the budget. MR. NOBRIGA: Rebuttal? MR. CRADDICK: To speed up the process, I'll say no comments here. CHAIRMAN RICE: You are learning. That's wise. MR. HASHIMOTO: Manages department according to budget. I know he has gone off the budget sometimes, but I rate him adequate on that. MR. TAGORDA: I still kind of want to rate the director and give him a score of 1 in terms of this item. Because my experience that many projects in the past they come in overbudgeted and there should be control to those situations. MR. STARR: I also give him a 1. I feel that it's still not systematic, and pots of money, and then try to cherry pick projects to fit into it. And then the projects that are in do come in overbudgeted. MR. NOBRIGA: Competent. MR. HIRANAGA: Repeat my previous comments, and also competent. MR. NAKAMURA: I think although there were a couple of questions of periodic delay, the department basically has managed according to the budget. So I have this as adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: The chair feels there are two issues here: one is that management of the budget and the operating side I think is competent. But I have had problems with cost overruns in projects. And I appreciate the bid specification issue that does come up, but I think this is certainly an area that needs to be looked at. And I'm not saying it's an easy fix, but I think it seems to me like too many times projects come in overbudgeted. And maybe we have to think about how we're bidding them, and maybe it's not all the director's fault, but I think it lowered my rating to adequate. MR. CRADDICK: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "overbudgeted," you mean change orders? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, that's overbudgeted. MR. CRADDICK: Okay, good. I was hoping that's what you said. We did compile some information, and over the years and over a hundred million dollars of job, we had less than $5 million in change orders. When the average is around 10 percent, we have slightly less than 5 percent in change orders overall. So I'll provide that documentation to you job by job. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I think that's a good observation; however, it does not necessarily respond to your concern as to whether or not that change order was budgeted. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. MR. HASHIMOTO: Coordinates well with the mayor and county council. I really don't know how he communicates with them, but I'll give him an adequate. MR. TAGORDA: I gave him 1 again. Because so many times I hear a lot of his consistencies and misleading information. MR. STARR: Marginal. I feel that a lot of times they will go there and he'll give two different answers to one question and it's done just to confuse people. MR. NOBRIGA: I rated him as marginal. MR. HIRANAGA: Well, coordinates well with the mayor and county council. I guess because we're a semiautonomous organization, I'm not sure how much contact the mayor and county council has with the director. It's difficult for me to determine their satisfaction with his performance. I rated him competent. MR. NAKAMURA: I still have a blank here because I kind of would like to have the director advise us as to how he communicates with the mayor and other key department heads. But in terms of the county council, I know I'm very concerned because I can recall two instances, one, when the council chair came to this meeting and stated for the record that the director was a liar. It's pretty strong words. And second, when Councilman English came to the meeting and complained about, I believe, inability to get information. So that kind of is a red flag for me. But I would appreciate hearing from the director later on as to how he communicates and coordinates with the mayor and other key department heads before I complete this rating. CHAIRMAN RICE: As the chair, I've had the opportunity to be with the director when he has done presentations to the mayor and things such as the water development fee. Which all seem to work quite well. There appears to be a good working relationship. But then I've been on the other side of the coin where I had council members call me about problems that they are having with the director. So I'm not sure that -- it's another situation, in my mind, where there's some good and there's some bad. There is certainly some area of improvement. So it's adequate. MR. CRADDICK: I have eight letters here from various people consisting of the mayor, six council members, Division of Public Works. And if the board would allow me, since Howard brought up the council chair in particular, this was gotten in anticipation of evaluation that was to occur in March. My feeling is I could get the same letters from them today. Mr. Kawano writes, This morning your board will be reviewing and evaluating the water director, and I wish to contribute my comments to the board. David Craddick has represented the department in a most satisfactory manner and has maintained a coordinated effort in his change in responsibility as the director of the water department. In regards to Mr. Craddick's attempts to work effectively with the council, he has been responsive to our many inquiries providing comments and justification or rational on various water issue concerns. The department has continued to provide the council with the Upcountry water reports that are of interest and concern to us. In addition, Mr. Craddick has been consistent with return calls and makes himself available for meetings. In terms of responsibility, it seems appropriate that Mr. Craddick is adequately maintaining and coordinating all effort and being accountable and answerable to the board and the operation of the department. I'm not aware of his relationship and interaction with the board directly, therefore I'm able to comment only on the working relationship experience between Mr. Craddick and the many requests and inquiries that my office generated directly to the director. Of this I am most satisfied. And I particularly picked this one out because of the exact issue that Howard brought up. We actually took photographs of that. I showed them to Mr. Kawano; he actually apologized for saying that to me at the meeting. And I'll submit the rest of these for the record. CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you. We didn't ask for it earlier, sorry, I stand corrected. MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, are you going to circulate that? CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes. Sorry. MR. CRADDICK: There's just one copy of each. CHAIRMAN RICE: I wanted to see if they are the same letter. I'll make a copy for everyone. Let's flip the page. Let's reverse the order. MR. NAKAMURA: On rules and regulations, this is an area that I have some concerns about; I think some of the concerns were expressed previously by, I believe, Board Member Nobriga. The director indicated that there was a package of potential revisions to the rules that were submitted. I believe, although I certainly can be corrected, that most of those changes were technical changes to conform to different elements of the code. But it does seem to me that there are a lot of areas where the rules are confusing, perhaps it conflicts. It would have been my expectation that the director would have been a little more aggressive in bringing these matters to the board's attention and submitting potential amendments which would have clarified and eliminated any inconsistencies or conflicts. So I feel that this is a marginal area. MR. HIRANAGA: Since I just became involved in reviewing the rules and regs via the rules committee, I feel the director should take a more proactive position in making recommendations to the committee, where he believes or his staff believes that the rules are inadequate or inconsistent. At this point, I'm going to rate him as marginal. MR. NOBRIGA: I've rated the director as marginal in this regard. However, I would place more responsibility on the office of corporation counsel. Unfortunately, in our three years as board members, Mr. Kushi, which is probably the most highly -- he is the best one we ever had to date, but he is like the fourth or fifth corporation counsel assigned. It doesn't do us a lot of justice, we have to go through so many corp counsels in the course of our tenure. MR. STARR: I rate him as marginal. He has not been proactive in helping us to get rules implemented, and I also feel that they're rules that were turned down by council that perhaps might have been due to the presentation by the director to the council after the board had gone out of its way to pass a rule and try to get it through. MR. TAGORDA: For rules and regulations for adoption to the board, I score him -- I gave him a 2 on that. Since I think there was a real effort by the director to have that Iao management rule to be adopted, although it took us too long. And also two new rules that was going to go to public hearing. The only problem I have is the department rules and regulations which is really outdated and it needs revision. We seek him to give us some new version of that outdated rule since it was edited in 1977, and I think that is where all the confusions that does happen within his department. MR. HASHIMOTO: I gave him an adequate. Enough said. CHAIRMAN RICE: Yeah, almost enough said. I guess if you have vocalized to me many times where a rule is not adequate or needs to be changed, whatever; but I don't believe that you've come to the board and said, I think we need to change this and this and this rule, or highlighted the existing rules that need to be looked at. I think that's -- we all know it's an important job for this board, and the rules committee is charged with doing that. But the initiative, I didn't see the initiative. Although you did -- you have vocalized that issue, or issues several times. MR. CRADDICK: We'll see at the next board meeting. MR. NAKAMURA: On the bills and collections, I rated this as being competent. Again, I think this is an area where our fiscal division is, I believe, doing a good job. Our delinquency, from my recollection, is relatively low. So I believe this is an area of competence. MR. HIRANAGA: I have no additional comments. I rated him competent. MR. NOBRIGA: I rated the director competent in this matter. Although there are times that -- I don't have any personal knowledge, but I always question if the interpersonal contact that the staff has with our general public is at the highest level possible. Providing good customer service. MR. STARR: Competent would do okay here. MR. TAGORDA: I gave him competent. MR. HASHIMOTO: Competent. CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, I would agree. I would make a point not to drag this on. But as we look at the issues that come before the board for disputed water fees, we don't end up with something that's -- somebody saying well, I was promised this and -- it's clearly something that the guy is trying to skirt, and the board quickly makes a decision in favor of not allowing any change and we're done with it. So it's how it should work. Mr. Craddick? MR. CRADDICK: I'll pass on that. CHAIRMAN RICE: You are getting wiser by the minute. MR. NAKAMURA: State and federal regulations. I think this is an area that the director has exhibited competency. I was about to rate him as commendable until I read the criteria, which is that commendable requires that you're better than most others in similar positions, and I would assume that all of the directors in the state are probably likewise familiar, and so I did rate him competent. MR. HIRANAGA: Having not heard anything to the contrary, I rated him competent. MR. NOBRIGA: I rated Mr. Craddick competent because of his involvement at the AWWA, both locally and at the federal level. MR. STARR: Adequate. MR. TAGORDA: I gave him adequate. I believe that because the department met the requirements of EPA and Safe Drinking Water Act, that's the reason why I gave him adequate. MR. HASHIMOTO: Competent. CHAIRMAN RICE: Competent. No comments. MR. CRADDICK: Well, one area that we are lax in is our backflow prevention, but that's been a money issue. But one that will need to be taken up, especially in light of 911. MR. NAKAMURA: On the next item, provides the board with periodic reports. I think this is an area that I am also concerned about. I think it has to do with the communication issue that has been raised by others. My feeling is that it has been very difficult to get meaningful reports. We do get, for instance, the monthly reports that come with the agendas or with the board packets; but while those are helpful, I think they don't necessarily help the board deal with major issues that they have to confront. And I feel that this is an area where a great deal of improvement is required. And so I rated this marginal. MR. HIRANAGA: Again, I guess the monthly division reports, I feel that these reports should be reformatted and resummarized to be more useful for the board members. I will attempt in the future to provide some type of guidelines that I feel would be helpful for me to use these reports. I rated him as adequate. MR. NOBRIGA: Marginal. MR. STARR: Marginal. It's very difficult to get good information from the director, as a board member. He keeps stopping sending out the daily flow reports, and I have to every once in a while get that started again. Very bad here. MR. TAGORDA: Marginal. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated him adequate. A lot of times we need reports to make decisions and a lot of times it does not come out. It comes out during the board meetings, so we have to defer a lot of projects. So I rate him adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think there's a lot of reports that we deal with here and maybe one of our -- as our future evaluation, we may want to break down the different reports. Because I think we get the monthly reports; we get the package, and I think you are referring to those. But I think we have seemed to have dropped our reporting on issues that come before the board, and I'm not sure that it's a time factor or not, if we're getting all the information we could or should. So it's adequate. Comments? MR. CRADDICK: I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the reporting. MR. NAKAMURA: On the inspection, I don't really have a lot of information on what the director does relative to inspection of facilities on a regular basis. I am assuming that that is being done; we do get reports in the monthly reports from the field personnel and others which does cover this area. So I rated this adequate. MR. HIRANAGA: Not hearing anything to the contrary, I rated him competent. MR. NOBRIGA: I have the director as very commendable. Based on our experience when we walked the flumes of Waikamoi, that was just incredible. I don't know if he does it every year, but I'm sure he does it often enough that he knows his way around the flumes and not to fall down or fall into it. MR. STARR: I rated him as marginal because he does get around. But as far as -- I, for one, especially with the operations committee, like to know when a pump is broken or when there's a -- a pipeline bursts or whatever, and I find it very hard to get this information, other than by calling him up and asking him when I hear a rumor from some outside source. So I feel that he is not letting us know what is really going on unless we push for it. MR. TAGORDA: I rated the director adequate. I think a report is being -- is given to board members every month. But the inspection of facilities, I really doubt if this is being done regularly, especially when the department went on the SCADA system. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated the director competent. I think he is out in the field a lot and I think he has some capable supervisors and department heads out in the field. So competent. CHAIRMAN RICE: I rated the director adequate. And I believe he does -- he is at the facilities. The one thing I don't think is done, and I'm not sure that it's totally a marked-down issue, but I think to the extent that the director inspects the facility, the Mahinahina treatment plant, it would be nice for there to be a report. We hear about the bad things that filter through the -- or whatever it is; but I was there, it was clean, it was working. We know you were there; we know it was in good shape, and this was one thing we're going to look at. That's not a markdown, but I think it's where we ought to go just so we know when he is doing those inspections. MR. CRADDICK: I guess everybody doesn't know we're required by the EPA regulations to perform sanitary surveys on every single one of our systems. In the future when those sanitary surveys comes in, we'll so inform the board. We have not failed any of those sanitary surveys. MR. NAKAMURA: On the next item, level of confidence with the public. I rated the director adequate. I think this is an area, however, that is of a little concern. We have had people who have expressed support for the director; we had testimony this morning; we have also had letters. And I guess the letters that are being circulated that have not gotten to us yet. At the same time, there were numerous occasions where people have come before the board that have complained about the way that they had been treated by the director or the department. So I think there are some mixed feelings in this area, and based on those mixed feelings I have, also based on the personal discussions I have had with Dave, again there does seem to be a certain amount of ambivalence on this. So I rated him adequate. MR. HIRANAGA: I believe that there are areas within the department that need improvement in the ability to communicate clearly, efficiently, and be it work conditions, workload, staffing, I'm not sure what the problem is. I clearly feel that the communication by the department with the public definitely needs improvement. So I rated him as adequate. MR. NOBRIGA: I find Mr. Craddick at the various public hearings we go to, to come across as like a Howard Cosell or even like a Howard Stern, they either love him or they hate him; there's no middle ground with the public and him. I have been at public hearings where it was possible for Mr. Craddick to actually insight riots because of what was pesented. But Mr. Craddick does make himself very available to the public; I give him an extra plus for that. But then again on the other side, he has this ability to be very argumentative with public providing testimony. There's times where he starts going off on a person in the public just providing testimony. This was probably the most difficult for me to score, and because of the balances of the pluses and the minus, I gave him a marginal. MR. STARR: I gave him a marginal here. There are a lot of people who feel that he has a definite truth and credibility problem. He's definitely given me two or three different answers to the same question and only one of them could be true. And I heard him do this personally with many other people; I have heard him do this in public where he will say this is the reason, and he will say that's the reason, and just one of them be true. And people hear this and don't feel that the credibility is there. So marginal is putting a cherry on top of it. MR. TAGORDA: I gave the director a score of 1. I think some people are still treated rudely by his subordinates. And people's requests are not immediately dealt with. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated the director adequate. There are some complaints where -- but I guess you can expect that. I know I had a call where they shut off their meter because they did not pay the bill, but they had paid the bill, and I guess one of the meter readers was rude. But I guess it was taken care of. I give the director adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think I've already said something about the public sentiment, and there's a couple different issues here. I've never had anyone call me and say that there's been a staff member or even Mr. Craddick having dealt with him rudely. But I have had people who were alleging some sort of favoritism or some kind of -- alleging something along those lines. And again, not taking a position about whether it's true or it's not true, the fact that that kind of sentiment was allowed to be created is a negative. And I also think that we don't have a lot of trust in the public as a board as well as with the directors because of Upcountry types of things. So public trust, the level of confidence that the public has in us and him, I don't think is very high. I think we're moving in the right direction and we're making some of the right decisions with regard to source and dealing with the list Upcountry and moving on the rules things, so I think we're going to build trust. But it ends up being marginal. MR. KUSHI: I'll come back. CHAIRMAN RICE: Let the record show that Mr. Kushi is leaving us, but due to come back. If we're not here, just look inside. MR. CRADDICK: We have performed customer surveys, and the water department actually has fared quite well on those customer surveys. But we're moving it from a satisfactory -- this kind of grading system that we have here, to one where we can actually come up with a customer satisfaction index. And there's a few things that we need to do to finalize that; but once we do, we'll present that to the board for their approval. But at that point, we'll have something to measure the customer satisfaction. And it's broken up into two groups: one, the people that have to interact with the staff, and other people that just receive a bill in the mail and have no other interaction with us other than that. CHAIRMAN RICE: You distributed a customer survey results to us? MR. CRADDICK: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN RICE: The board or -- MR. NAKAMURA: That was two or three years ago. CHAIRMAN RICE: So some of us but not all of us, depending on how long you have been on the board. MR. CRADDICK: I think when you came on the board it was in your packet. CHAIRMAN RICE: A customer survey? MR. CRADDICK: Yeah. Because I think you guys came on later. CHAIRMAN RICE: So we have not done one since two or three years. We don't do a regular customer service survey. MR. CRADDICK: No. CHAIRMAN RICE: How extensive is this survey that you are planning? Is it multipage? MR. CRADDICK: It's fairly extensive, yes. CHAIRMAN RICE: I would suggest -- and I hope it comes to the board before it gets implemented. But I would suggest that we do something that we could put in a billing envelope every -- once a year, let's just say, or once every six months. Not every month or they will throw it out. But if it's once a year or once every six months to send it back with their payment and it's small enough that it fits in the envelope and it can be folded and easily put into the payment. Enough said. Next? MR. NAKAMURA: On the facilities and equipment, I rated this as adequate. I don't feel that I necessarily have all the information that might be needed. For instance, age of equipment, failure of equipment, a line breaks, as compared to perhaps other jurisdictions in the state. And I'm not aware of any systematic approach to insure that the facilities and equipment are maintained to highest standards. But I did rate this as adequate. MR. HIRANAGA: I have not heard anything to the contrary, so I rated him as competent. MR. NOBRIGA: Based on our trip to Washington D.C. to attend the Association of Water Works conference, I have to come to the conclusion that the stuff that we have is so old that it must have to be maintained because we are still using it. And I rated him competent. MR. STARR: I rate him competent on this, the brass is polished up pretty well. MR. TAGORDA: I was going to give the director competent but I changed my mind, I give him adequate. Because every time I pick up my meat by Kokomo, I see the water tank that's never been changed for five years. There's a lot of limu and things like that. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated the director competent. I think in the two or three field trips we had, you know, looking at their treatment plants and things like that, it looks like they are kept in pretty good shape. He might have shown us only the good ones, but whatever I saw -- no, I don't think so. But I would rate him competent. CHAIRMAN RICE: And for the same reason, I also rated him between adequate and competent because I reflected on our field trips and I was impressed with many of the facilities. They were very clean and they appeared to be well kept. But I'm a laymen, so thus the modification to the rating. MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, is that a permissible action to pick? CHAIRMAN RICE: It's the chair's order. Okay, I'll make it adequate. MR. CRADDICK: This particular -- I guess is where I probably rate what we do the lowest, because there's been probably over 20 years of inadequate funding for providing basic system operation or maintenance and it would be nice to say that most of our system is above ground; but in fact, most of it is not above ground; most of it is below ground and you can't see it. But it is reflected in the pipeline breaks that we have and we have complaints of red water and low water pressure and things like that. On the brighter side of things, the facilities that do deliver our water, the deep well pumps, the treatment plants, they are all very well maintained and have very good preventative maintenance programs that the staff have put in place themselves. I'm quite proud of that, that end of it, because it's a big change from when I came here. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. MR. NAKAMURA: I thought that this well trained and staffed department somewhat went with the item regarding the level of confidence with the public, and so I have the same rating which was adequate. MR. HIRANAGA: I guess my concern is efficiency and that also relates to level of communication and that also relates to staffing or training. So I rated him as adequate. MR. NOBRIGA: I felt that having -- maintaining a well-trained staff department also relates to having training available to the staff. I rated the -- the director -- I'm sorry, competent on having well-trained staff, and commendable on having training available. The reason why the discrepancy is because I still feel the staff, in most cases, spent a whole lot of time and energy looking at ways why something cannot be done, instead of looking for ways that things can happen. MR. STARR: I think staff is well trained, but there are a lot of holes in this staffing. There are a lot of holes in our quality water services as well. So I rate that marginal. MR. TAGORDA: I give the director a score of 1. When I look at the staff department, it seems to me that vacancies are being filled, and in the absence of performance tracking and managing through monthly report on his employees, I think I gave him a score of 1. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated the director adequate. I think with a big department like this, it's really hard to keep track of who is sleeping under the tree or things like that. But as far as in his department heads and other staff, I think they do very well. So I give him adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: I marked the director adequate and my comments would be that I think we have some very well-trained people in certain positions, and I think we have some big pukas in staffing. And I don't feel comfortable -- and I don't have a handle on why we have those large staffing pukas, and I don't know if it's a benefits or if it's a poor job of recruiting or if it's a workplace issue, but I think it has to be looked at. MR. CRADDICK: As far as the training, I don't know if everybody knows, but now all our system operators, as well as the treatment plant operators, have to be certified. And along with that certification, there is yearly training requirements to maintain that certification. So not only can we show that they're properly trained, but they have to maintain that training on a yearly basis from here on out. Now, as far as staffing, we have about 16 percent of the employees at any given time that are -- positions that are vacant. Out of that, perennially about one-third of that 16 percent or 5 percent is in the treatment plant area. The rest of them, I think, are just normal turnover. And we do have four pipe fitter helper positions vacant, and I believe they are in the process of getting a list for that. But for the most part, that list of vacancies, whether it's from turnover or whatever, it seems to be relatively constant, around 10 to 15 percent. You can use that in your budgeting in the future. CHAIRMAN RICE: Chop it. MR. NAKAMURA: On the adequate training and the relationship to OSHA standards, I also interpret this to deal with things like compliance with other state and federal requirements, and as far as I know, there have not been any major violations that have occurred. Unless David can advise us otherwise, it seems as though standards are met. The rules are being complied with, and so I rated this as competent. I would be curious to know, David, to help me answer the next question as to what our record is regarding accidents and workers' comp claims. So you can perhaps deal with that when you have a chance to. But on this one I rated it as competent. MR. HIRANAGA: Having not heard anything to the contrary, I rated him competent. MR. NOBRIGA: I already put mine in as commendable. MR. STARR: Competent -- no, I'm sorry, adequate. MR. TAGORDA: I gave him marginal. I don't hear any adequate training being given to division heads. So probably just lacking. MR. HASHIMOTO: Competent. CHAIRMAN RICE: And the chair rated him competent. No comments. Mr. Craddick? MR. CRADDICK: Two divisions do have the majority of the workers' comp claims, that's the field operations and the treatment plant group have probably 90 percent of the workers' comp claims. And there are some work that could probably go on in those areas to reduce those numbers of claims. And as far as meeting OSHA standards, we did get one fine a number of years ago regarding a hard hat violation. But since then, the employees are pretty good at keeping their hats on. Because we now suspend them if they are found to be lacking in that area. But safety issues, I mean, are constant issue with us, and constant issue with myself. That's all you can say there. CHAIRMAN RICE: All right. MR. NAKAMURA: I guess that response does not help me terribly. But encouraging safety in the workplace, I guess I would rate that competent. I would hope that there is a proactive program rather than just a punitive program. I would rate that as commendable -- I'm sorry, as competent. MR. HIRANAGA: Having not heard anything to the contrary, I rated him competent. MR. NOBRIGA: I don't know anything about his program or anything, so I couldn't score this one. I'm not sure if the overcrowding -- CHAIRMAN RICE: Go ahead. MR. NOBRIGA: I'm not sure if the overcrowding within the office has anything to do with the safety. But should you call OSHA up, he would probably be cited for something. I don't know. I cannot -- pass. MR. STARR: Adequate. MR. TAGORDA: A score of 1. I have not seen any manuals -- or programs about safety. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated the director competent. I'm sure as a director he would encourage safety. No matter what you do, it's safety. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick, 90 percent of the accidents occur in two divisions, but at what level? Certainly it's an indication that you need to focus the safety program in those divisions. But what's the -- don't you get a regular report about workers' comp, how much money is being reserved for claims and how much money is settled and the effect of workers' comp? MR. NOBRIGA: Health is self-insured. There's nothing -- MR. CRADDICK: No. The only thing I can say is that there's -- the last time we checked, there is an average of about -- that was just claims in general. To tell you the truth, I don't know between workers' comp -- I just know the level of claims in general against the water department. Those have been about $60,000 a year. And to separate out workers' comp from that, I couldn't do that at this time. CHAIRMAN RICE: But the insurance number that we use in the budget is known to us and it's not an issue yet. We have had one large claim in like five or six years and the rest have been fairly manini, so I don't see an issue there. We don't see any numbers, I guess because they are self-insured of any claim. It might be interesting to report to show the board, if we can get an annual summary of that. We certainly would expect you to focus your efforts in safety in the areas where the majority of the claims are coming from. So I rated it as adequate. Let's hit the last one, then we can go around for comments. MR. NOBRIGA: Rebuttal? MR. CRADDICK: I gave my comments. CHAIRMAN RICE: I thought he did too. MR. NOBRIGA: Sounds good. MR. NAKAMURA: Last one. CHAIRMAN RICE: Let the record reflect that Mr. Kushi has arrived back at the meeting. MR. NAKAMURA: Smiling. CHAIRMAN RICE: Smiling. He got out of it. MR. NAKAMURA: The last item, the level of confidence and trust with the board. I think it's very important that the board and the director work very closely together in meeting the many needs of our community, and I think that is essential to meeting those needs. And I don't believe that at this point that level of confidence and trust exists. Whether it's totally the director's responsibility or to what extent it is the board that is contributing to that; nevertheless, I think that that does exist, unfortunately. And I would rate this as marginal. MR. HIRANAGA: I rated the director as adequate. I feel that maybe some of the basis for some of the director's concerns regarding the level of confidence and trust relates to his quality of communication he provides to the board, be it himself or his staff; be it verbal or written. But I think he should reassess his style of communication with the board. I think that would help him go a long way in gaining the additional confidence and trust of the board. Again, I rated him adequate. MR. NOBRIGA: I rated the director marginal in this regard. MR. STARR: I also rated him marginal in this regard. Although I like him, I never really -- a lot of the times I believe he is not telling me the truth or trying to hide things from me. A lot of things I have tried to get him to keep me informed about and it seems that I have to go on a hunt for that information or I get wrong information. MR. TAGORDA: I gave him marginal and used the word "nada, zero, zip." He is a good man, a fine man, but the level of confidence and trust with me, as far as I'm concerned, does not exist. MR. HASHIMOTO: I rated him adequate. CHAIRMAN RICE: I think I started with this one when I gave my introductory speech, and I think -- and I agree with the comments made by my fellow directors that the Board of Water Supply or any board or commission can't be in the position of creating policy unless they have an extremely high level of trust and an extremely close working relationship with the director. And I don't think it exists. For various reasons we get confused. Maybe Kent is right, maybe it's a manner of communication, but whatever it is and whatever intention it is, it's not there. I think it's -- to me this is the key one. There's a couple of adequates and the rest of them are marginal. I think, Mr. Craddick, that's an important thing for you to take note of. You might want to wait to make a comment because we'll go around and do general comments, then you can close it up. MR. NAKAMURA: I'm still first? CHAIRMAN RICE: You want to take a break? MR. NAKAMURA: No. I'll move ahead. In terms of general comments, Mr. Chairman, I think on the plus side I have very high regard for the director's commitment to water in Maui County. I believe that he spends a lot of time on the job; he is familiar with the systems and he is dedicated and committed. I believe he does appear to have the respect of his peers statewide and I think that's a positive thing. On the other hand, I think some of the issues that have been raised today are of great concern to me. I believe the question of communication has been brought up. For whatever reason, whether or not it's the director cannot or whether he will not communicate with the board; nevertheless, I believe it is happening and it's making our job very difficult. I have mentioned my concern about planning, and I believe that there are some real areas of things that need to be addressed there. I am concerned about the reports that we get. I believe that the staff reports and the presentations leave a great deal to be desired. We are, in many cases, provided information; we get volume, we get volumes of paper without any real analysis or evaluation. And to me that's very troubling. We have had committee meetings where we virtually had to beg for information and despite constantly bringing this to the attention of the director, we continue to get inadequate information, presentations are made without maps. It's extremely frustrating. I think that sometimes the director's responses are too much off the cuff. I think, David, there's nothing wrong to say, I don't know, I'll find out and let you know later. But I think basically what concerns me is the communication between the director and the board. And at this point, the board's lack of confidence in those -- in the communication. I guess that would summarize my feelings, Mr. Chairman. MR. HIRANAGA: I guess I keep seeing the word "communication." I think that would go a long way to helping him increase the load of confidence. Also the perception of his performance, if he would work on his verbal and written communication from himself and the staff. Although I have been on the board for ten months, I look forward in the future to work with him in order to help provide some guidelines as to how much information the board wants. A lot of times it's difficult determining what is too much information and what is not enough information. Trying to identify what the -- what amount of communication is appropriate. I guess that needs to be fine-tuned to the board and the director. MR. NOBRIGA: I am extremely comfortable working with Mr. Craddick. I find his banter refreshing and amusing; it makes me want to come to the meetings just to find out what else he is going to say. Although I too am troubled with my ability to fully -- I don't know, my confidence level is just not there. For me, Mr. Craddick tends to provide too much information, where I'm sitting and I'm contemplating decision on a matter, I kind of agree with him, then he keeps going on, and then I change my mind. In my past three years, I think I have gone along with the staff recommendation I think only twice in my entire career. That's how bad it is. I forgot everything else I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN RICE: I'll give you one more chance. You want to pass the baton? MR. NOBRIGA: No, I think that's sufficient, I think. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr? MR. STARR: Well, I think the director is hard working and he is intelligent and he is likeable. I like him as a person; I like him as a friend. But there are problems that are so huge and I feel that this board is really at a crossroads where it has to take a new road. It becomes imperative. I feel that I cannot depend on or trust the information I get. I cannot trust that when this board does an action, that it's going to be carried out wholeheartedly by the director. Or he is going to try to find some way to scheme and turn it into something else. There's a wiggle factor. The public knows this; the public sees it, and we don't have their confidence. We know we need to make some changes if there's going to be water. If this organization is going to be financially viable, it has to start with some really usable planning. We can create a philosophical plan on the board; but as far as a real leadership to be able to fix up the rotting pipes and to be able to go for new sources and lead us on in a really productive matter, it has to be strategic and it has to be done by someone with a real goal and vision and not just by hopping around and trying to put out the fires and trying to look good. I really don't think we're going to succeed unless we find another way of doing business; I feel very strongly in this regard. And that overrules my feelings of liking for the personality. But we need to create this credibility; we need the planning and we need to have a direction. The director is supposed to -- that's what he is supposed to do. The word "director" means direct. It means he knows where it has to go. He even should be helping to direct the board in our policy decisions as well as directing his own people. That's not what is happening. Instead of a director, we have a confuser (sic). MR. TAGORDA: David, my comment is, I have no personal animosity with you. I like you a lot because you never get upset. But I am disappointed and not impressed with your overall performance, and have no alternative but to score you very low on this evaluation. The real problem of this department is you, the director. And I strongly believe that this department needs an aggressive, compassionate, and honest person. Aggressive in completing CIP projects. We need someone who can connect with the community; service their needs honestly and be respected. We need someone who has a vision; someone who can find ways to use water; who can execute agreements in a timely fashion; and someone who doesn't renege on commitments. And, David, I believe we need, and I strongly advocate this, a director who can meet the duties and responsibilities that are prescribed in our county charter and all essential functions that the board may require of you and meet the expectations of the community. MR. HASHIMOTO: I think David as our director has a really, really tough job. We have nine board of directors to be responsible for. He has his friends. He knows his water, he knows the water system. I think overall he is knowledgeable of the water system and is an asset to the water board. But again, a lot of times that we need to make decisions, the communication, again, is coming out -- it's hard, a lot of times it's difficult to make decisions because of the amount of non-communication. Or like Howard mentioned, the stacks and reams of papers we get that we go through, a lot of times it doesn't say much about how we can make a good decision. So we need -- I think the director has to communicate with the board better. So that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN RICE: Here's my perception, David, and I don't know, this is only how I have listened to things happen and talked to people. I think the board is probably unanimous on your knowledge of the water system on Maui. We know that. But I think the problem with that is that you know that and sometimes when you need to deal with not so knowledgeable board members, maybe it's a pain to bring everybody up to speed with that knowledge, or maybe the board is going somewhere that you don't want them to go, or you don't like them to go. So we can feel that resistance. It may be some of it is ego. You have been doing this thing so long; you know so much about it that you don't want to deal with some guy that the mayor appoints who manges condos that doesn't know diddly-squat about water. And I have been there because I have been doing something that's similar. I worked for boards of directors for 28 years managing property. I don't own the property; I do what they want me to do and I try to direct them to do what I think is the right thing to do, but I don't make the final decision. You have to learn that. And that is, no matter how much you think you know about a situation, this condo guy is Mr. Coca Cola over here and we're still the directors and we're still entrusted in making those decisions and we just might know something about business and how to get things done, but we may not know how to drill a well, but we just might know something. But I'm just surmising that that's one of the issues, and I think that's -- I think, in my mind, that's a source of one of the problems. And I think your background, being in the water side, is such that I don't think you have good management skills. I think some of the things that come out of public problems have to do with managing our staff. And so I think that -- and that leads us into the planning side, the management -- the non-water kinds of things that a director needs to do. I think that's -- that's the second major issue. The third major issue is that you have been long enough on the job that you probably -- it's inevitable and maybe it's not a fault; maybe it would happen to anyone. But you are in this job long enough, the political forces start to make a difference. You get pulled by the pros and the cons of every issue. And I think you probably take sides. It might be unavoidable. I think it comes out sometimes. Maybe you don't want to, but I think you get stuck. Maybe you get stuck in issues. Maybe you get pushed by people; maybe it's the mayor, or the council member, or it's another board member, but it's sometimes not what the rest of the board thinks should be a position. And maybe you try to hide that, because all of a sudden it's really obvious no one is in favor of going that way. So it creates conflict and it creates mistrust. And I just think that -- I think it's inevitable. You are in this position for a long time. It's hard. In regards to issue about vision, you might have a vision, I'm not so sure. I'm sure you share the vision that the board has, which would be essential for us to move forward in a productive manner. Maybe we have not talked about it as a group enough. We certainly -- I think the strategic plan that Howard's committee worked on last year was a tremendous first step and maybe needs more discussion, but it's the groundwork for a vision that we have to share. There's no two visions. There's not room for more than one vision in this organization. That's my comments. Tough job having to do your review in public. MR. CRADDICK: My turn? CHAIRMAN RICE: Your turn. MR. CRADDICK: As far as sharing the vision, if our vision is to provide clean water efficiently, I share that vision 100 percent. As far as your concern there at the beginning of the meeting of somehow having two views, I know I bent over backwards to try and get it to where the board and staff spoke with one voice, even to the point of changing our letterhead. There was no Department of Water Supply; it was the Board of Water Supply. The community, when they communicated with us, stuff came in Board of Water Supply to distinguish it somewhat from just another county administration. And I know getting everyone to share that vision was quite difficult. I know it came to a head with the airport runway issue. But believe you me there's nobody that shares more that we should be acting with one voice, and I am certainly willing to do what the board wants to do. Except, as Mr. Kushi pointed out, when it becomes illegal, I do have some concerns. And the board themselves may not feel they are doing something illegal, but hopefully you don't call me on the carpet because I check after something is -- something that the board has done, just to satisfy myself. Because I myself can get sued myself doing something illegal. Personally. Not as a director of the water department. If you do something illegal, I can be sued personally on that. So I do like to make sure that I am doing things legally. But I share your need to have everybody acting in one voice. And as far as the people coming in for waivers for the rule, I'm sorry if the staff communications are not clear; but I think we uniformly say we are for public health and safety, and it is not really clear to myself or the staff why it is the board feels that these waivers are justified or necessary where they don't have to meet full compliance with the rules. But if they don't, we need -- that communication needs to go both ways, because we're more than happy to back you up if that communication is made to us. But all I know is to enforce the rules. That's all I have. That's my job. We recommend to the board to follow the rules and the board finds a way that strict compliance with the rules isn't necessary. That shouldn't take more than one or two times to say we need to change the rules if it's clearly communicated why that is being done. But again, as I say, I'm more than willing to do whatever I can to improve communications, not only with the board but with the public, and move on. CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr? MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I would like to request either one of two things. On one side I kind of would like to wrap this process up and I would be willing to make a motion, a direct action motion in regards to that if that's in order. Alternately, I would be -- I would want to have it in a way we can move ahead with this in a finite time frame and maybe do it in such a way that Board Member Tagorda is still with us and we can reexamine it. So I'm happy to wrap it up today or set a time to reexamine this at your pleasure. CHAIRMAN RICE: Is there any other comments before I say anything? Yes, Mr. Nakamura. MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be appropriate to have a session with our attorney regarding procedure as to how we -- we have done the evaluation in terms of what our obligations are or our limitations are, what we need to do. I'm just wondering if that might not be an appropriate thing to do. CHAIRMAN RICE: You want to say something? MR. HIRANAGA: I thought it would be useful if someone compiled this evaluation form and provided David with a summarized format so he would know on each item what his score is. That will be performance to management. CHAIRMAN RICE: I'll collect it. I'll do that. At this time I think it would be appropriate for someone to make a motion for the board to go into executive session to consult with their attorney. MR. STARR: I move that we go into executive session subject to section -- pursuant to HRS 92-5(a)(2) in order to consider the hire, evaluation, discipline of an officer and to consult our -- I'm sorry, to be to consult -- it would be -- can I let the corp counsel put in the appropriate part? MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, Board Member Starr, I believe it's 92-5(a)(4), which is to consult with the board's attorney. MR. STARR: I would like to make that part of my motion, please. CHAIRMAN RICE: Is there a second? MR. NAKAMURA: Second. CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. It's been moved and seconded we go into executive session to talk with our attorney. Any discussion? MR. NOBRIGA: I guess once we go in our final -- what are we going for? I'm kind of curious what you want to ask the attorney. But I'll vote in the affirmative to find out what that is. CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other -- all in favor say "aye." (A chorus of ayes.) Opposed? (No response.) Clear the room, please. Thank you. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN RICE: Regular meeting back to order. MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion that the chair compile the evaluations and write some comments based on that and come back to the board with recommendations on how to proceed with the process. CHAIRMAN RICE: Is there a second? MR. NOBRIGA: Second. CHAIRMAN RICE: Any discussion? All in favor say "aye." (A chorus of ayes.) Opposed say "nay." (No response.) Motion is carried. Meeting is over. (The proceedings were concluded at 3:00 p.m.) IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Department of Water Supply
County of Maui
P.O. Box 1109
Wailuku, HI 96793-6109
Telephone (808) 270-7816
Fax (808) 270-7951