Committee advances Bill 89 to set minimum qualifications, 60-day hiring window for Hawaii County civil defense administrator

The Hawaii County Council Committee on Government Operations and External Affairs voted Nov. 4 to send Bill 89 to the full council on first reading. The bill would amend Chapter 7, Article 1 of the Hawaii County Code to require that the civil defense administrator have at least three years of responsible administrative experience in emergency management, disaster planning, homeland security or public safety services management and at least two years of supervisory or administrative experience.

Councilmember Kerkowitz, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure was prompted by gaps in leadership visibility during recent disasters and is intended to “ensure that standard of excellence continues.” The measure also requires that the mayor appoint a replacement within 60 days of a vacancy and authorizes the mayor to convene a selection advisory panel that would include the fire chief and police chief to evaluate candidates.

The bill drew two public testifiers. John McBride, who identified himself as a Hilo CERT Bay team leader, told the committee that high formal qualifications should not displace local candidates and that the role “requires heart” in addition to technical skills. “Nobody hits the road running when you get into a job…this job require heart,” McBride said. Patty Pinto urged caution about making the civil defense administrator an at‑will mayoral appointee, saying, “We cannot have a civil defense agency that is run by somebody who is appointed every 4 years at the whim of a mayor.”

Kerkowitz said the bill does not remove the mayor’s appointing authority under state law but is intended to codify baseline qualifications and encourage the mayor to use an advisory panel of public safety chiefs during the selection process. At one point she noted the proposal mirrors language in state statute governing baseline qualifications for similar posts.

Committee members asked whether the 60‑day appointment requirement carried any enforcement mechanism. Kerkowitz and other supporters said the provision is aspirational—intended to create public and political pressure for timely appointments—but acknowledged the committee lacks legal authority to force the mayor to appoint by day 61.

The committee adopted an amendment offered by Kerkowitz (contents of communication 5‑14.1) to clarify the language on qualifications and the advisory panel. The amendment was approved, and the committee then approved the bill as amended by roll call vote. The final committee tally was six in favor; committee materials record several members absent at the time of the final vote.

The bill will now go to the full Hawaii County Council for consideration on first reading.