The Hawaii County Council voted 5-3 Wednesday in opposition of a bill that would transfer many of the executive powers vested in the mayor’s office to a newly created “county manager” position in what Mayor Kimo Alameda described as a “total power grab.”

Read more Shohei Ohtani homers in 9-run first as Dodgers drub Angels

The Hawaii County Council voted 5-3 Wednesday in opposition of a bill that would transfer many of the executive powers vested in the mayor’s office to a newly created “county manager” position in what Mayor Kimo Alameda described as a “total power grab.”

Bill 158 would have converted the county’s government into a “hybrid council-manager system” where certain departments and operations would be overseen by this appointed county manager.

Council members James Hustace, Ashley Kierkiewicz, Jenn Kagiwada, Holeka Inaba and Dennis “Fresh” Onishi all cast “no” votes. Puna Councilman Matt Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder was absent.

Since the bill called for an amendment to the County Charter, the proposal would’ve been put to voters on the 2026 General Election ballot.

Under the failed measure, the county manager would’ve replaced the role of managing director and served as the county’s chief executive officer in place of the mayor for a six-year term. The mayor and County Council acting together would’ve appointed candidates to this new position, which would be responsible for administering operations, overseeing department leadership and preparing county budgets.

The bill barely made it through committee hearings on May 19 when the Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs voted 5-4 in favor of sending it to the full council.

According to the legislation, removing a serving county manager without a request from the mayor would’ve required a two-thirds vote of the council. If the removal came at the request of the mayor, the council would’ve only needed a simple majority to proceed.

The mayor would’ve been converted into the “chief elected official” and retained the power to veto bills, appoint certain department leaders, and direct intergovernmental relations.

Heads of several critical government bodies would’ve been appointed by the county manager, including the directors of Public Works, Environmental Management, Finance and Information Technology. The bill also would have empowered the manager to appoint members of the Office of Corporation Counsel and wield control over the Hawaii Police Department, Department of Liquor Control and Department of Water Supply.

The bill was authored by Hamakua Councilwoman Heather Kimball, who said the reasoning behind the proposed shakeup of power is to ensure that progress of long-term county projects is not disrupted by frequent election cycles.

“First and foremost, I think that what the public wants to see is transparency and accountability,” Kimball said during the meeting. “More than anything, that’s what folks want to see — that when there are projects that are established or programs that are established, clear oversight, clear guidance that these will continue between administrations. … When you have something that requires a significant amount of coordination, having continuity and being able to kind of bird dog that through multiple administrations — through different political machinations — that’s important, and that’s key to people.”

This frustration at how the perennial changing of county leadership can cause large projects to lag was shared by testifiers like Patti Pinto, a recovery and redevelopment assistant with the Planning Department, who described the current structure of the county’s government as a “significant impediment.”

“I hope that the conversation continues in council, and that through a process of collaboration a better solution for the county can be found,” Pinto said. “I’ve often felt that the county suffers from ‘50 First Dates syndrome’ — a complete brain wipe with each new administration. Even with the best of intentions, projects get lost, implementation lags and fails, and the communities that are impacted by these losses lose faith in their government’s ability to serve (them). Those staff members who worked on project implementation are also disheartened. It does not improve the county work culture to see our work sidelined and languishing on someone’s shelf.”

Opposition testifiers included Puna resident Sara Steiner, who questioned why the measure was necessary.

“Do we not trust the mayor?” she asked. “Can he not oversee the departments? I mean, this island is small compared to the other islands.

Read more Panel defers bill regarding STVRs

“If people would just do their jobs and not be on their phones and iPads and things, maybe we could get things done,” she added.

After public testimony wrapped up, Kierkiewicz weighed in on the bill, saying the idea that it “shared power” between the mayor and newly created county manager was misleading.

“I think it renders the mayor’s role useless,” she said. “Without being able to do the budget or have any sort of like direction over the operations, I don’t see this shared power that you’re describing.”

She questioned whether Hawaii Island was prepared to undertake such a radical change, and if the ballot was the right venue to conduct political experiments.

“I don’t think the public is ready for this wholesale restructuring of government,” Kierkiewicz said. “And my honest opinion is I don’t believe that a ballot question is the appropriate place to test out this idea. I think that it requires widespread community outreach — meeting with folks. … No one that has approached me has expressed support for this idea. Folks are a bit caught off guard.”

Kimball conceded that the bill has seen blowback over fears that it would greatly reduce the power of the county’s executive branch leader.

“There was a legitimate concern that this approach would relegate the mayor to essentially a figurehead position,” she said. “I kind of want to push back on that a little bit, because it’s really just a revisioning of the mayor’s role to be more the lighthouse, the North Star, the guiding person … I don’t see it as any sort of diminishment of the mayor’s role.”

Alameda told the Tribune-Herald shortly after Wednesday’s vote that Kimball’s “revisioning” of his role was “playing semantics” and a reckless attempt to vastly increase legislative control of county government.

“It’s a total power grab,” he said. “It does confuse the boundaries between the different branches of government. It takes away the power of the people. I think everything that the testifiers are saying is true … without the balance of government there’s no government, that’s what concerns me. … You gotta respect the different branches of government or else we become a dictatorship.”

Although Kimball made it clear during the bill’s committee meeting that the measure was not “a referendum on the current administration,” Alameda nevertheless said he was “kind of offended and maybe insulted, even” to learn of its intentions.

“Well, I don’t know. It’s about my team or — it has to be about something,” he said.

He expressed frustration that county resources were spent on what he agreed was a “pet project” of a single council member.

“This is time and energy wasted, you know?” he said.

To Kimball’s assertion that she’s simply trying to “put it out there and let the people vote,” he used colorful examples of why some ideas are such nonstarters that they don’t belong on a ballot.

“Let people vote? I mean, this is ridiculous,” he said. “You don’t let the people vote for slavery, or let the people vote for internment camps. How about just let the people vote to, I don’t know, get rid of the legislative branch? I mean, there’s some things you don’t put on the ballot because it’s just crazy.”

Read more New York City’s most patient soccer fans are ready for the party

Email Stefan Verbano at [email protected].