Hawaii County committee splits over whether public works director must be an engineer; two charter amendments debated

A contentious discussion over who should lead Hawaii County's Department of Public Works — and how the county should choose that person — dominated the July 8 Committee on Government Operations and External Affairs meeting.

Bill 64, introduced by Councilmember Ben Inaba, would amend the County Charter to allow a candidate for director of Public Works to qualify with a bachelor’s degree in engineering, architecture, public administration, a law degree, or a professional engineering (PE) license and require five years of managerial experience including at least two years in public works or construction. Bill 65, introduced by Councilmember Heather Kimball, would create a county Public Works Commission with authority to hire and fire the director and provide oversight of the department. Both proposals were discussed together and drew sustained debate about public-safety risk, managerial skill sets, recruitment, and county hiring practice.

Why it matters: The director position oversees engineering, building permits and major infrastructure projects that affect public safety. Committee members and witnesses disagreed whether the county should insist on a PE license for the director, or instead broaden candidate qualifications to expand the applicant pool and prioritize managerial skills.

Committee discussion and testimony

Three public testifiers addressed the bills before the committee hearing. John Olsen (public comment) voiced support for a separate nomination earlier in the agenda. Hugh Ono, who testified in person, said he supported both bills generally and asked the committee to consider alternatives to the strict PE requirement because of recruitment difficulty. Curtis Beck, a licensed professional engineer representing the Big Island Engineers Association, testified in opposition to Bill 64 as drafted and in support of Bill 65, telling the committee a licensed engineer serving as director “makes for the best possible safeguarding of the public interest and safety.”

Council members split on the policy tradeoffs. Councilmember Kimball, sponsor of Bill 65, described her draft as “boilerplate” to form a commission similar to the police commission and said a commission could make the director a merit hire rather than a political appointment. Kimball also offered two amendments intended to clarify Bill 64’s educational categories and to require any technical engineering decisions be delegated to a licensed PE if the director lacked that credential.

Supporters of retaining a PE requirement said engineers provide needed technical oversight for bridges, culverts and other infrastructure. Councilmember Galimba and others highlighted continuity and technical safeguards as a reason to keep engineering expertise central. Opponents emphasized recruitment challenges, managerial responsibilities for a department with multiple divisions and roughly hundreds of employees, and examples where strong management (not necessarily engineering credentials) was successful.

Administration perspective and recruitment

William Brillante, the County Managing Director, and Deputy Managing Director Merrick Nishimoto briefed the committee on recruitment. Brillante said the county has had difficulty attracting licensed engineers for the director job because private-sector pay and job security are generally higher. He said the county needs a strong manager able to work with staff, the public and contractors, and that prior recruitment outreach had yielded few viable applicants.

Corporation Counsel Renee Sean and the county HR director, Summer Tokihiro, told the committee there is no formal internal appeal mechanism for staff who disagree with a director’s technical decision; employment-related protections or collective-bargaining dispute processes would apply, and building-code appeals from the public go to the Board of Appeals. That exchange framed Councilmember Kimball’s amendment to require delegation of engineering-specific decisions to a licensed PE when the director was not a PE.

Votes at a glance

- Bill 65 (create Public Works Commission): Motion to approve and forward to full council was made, then a motion to postpone the bill to the call of the chair passed (9 in favor) and the bill was postponed for further work. Outcome: postponed to call of the chair.

- Bill 64 (director qualifications): The committee considered two amendments (communication 334.1 clarifying allowed degrees; communication 334.2 requiring delegation of engineering decisions to a licensed PE). The first amendment (334.1) failed on an initial roll call (5–4 in favor but later reconsideration produced a 4–4 tie with one absence and ultimately the motion failed) and then failed again on reconsideration; the second amendment (334.2) failed (3 in favor, 6 against). A motion by the bill sponsor to recommend passage on first reading did not receive a majority; that motion failed and, per the clerk’s announcement, the item will move to the full council with an unfavorable recommendation.

Dissenting and cautionary voices

Councilmember Onishi and others argued a director without technical expertise could be hamstrung overseeing division chiefs who are licensed engineers. Councilmember Kirkowitz warned against delegating final authority away from the director. Councilmember Villegas and others said management, personnel and community-skills are also essential and that strict PE-only requirements have limited the county’s applicant pool in prior recruitments.

What’s next

Committee members proposed further work: an ad hoc or intercommittee process to jointly examine the department’s structure, potential separation of divisions, and whether an appointed commission, a revamped qualification standard, or organizational changes would best balance technical oversight, recruitment, and managerial capacity. Bill 65 was postponed to the call of the chair; Bill 64 will go to full council with an unfavorable recommendation from this committee.

Provenance (transcript excerpts): first related remarks introduced at s=2469.7048–e=2497.105 (bill 65 introduction and initial motion) and discussion continues through s=8196.745–e=8237.346 (final vote outcomes).