2004-04 Council Term Limits Article III, Section 3-2, Hawaii County Charter

Home

Hawaii County Council January 4, 1995 In fact, this new body is elected because we had two year terms and it got changed around quite radically. I think that ' s what the voter' s wanted so we can keep putting it back on that ballot but they wanted two-year terms, Mr. Ray and Mr. Arakaki. Like it or not, that' s what they want. Thank you. CHR. OSORIO: Mr. De Lima. MR. DE LIMA: Well actually, that's not totally correct. The two-year term has always been tied to another issue. When it first was adopted by the voter's, it was tied to single member districts. It did not ever stand alone. The second time it was put on the ballot, it was tied to a term limit bill and that measure was not published in a time frame for it to appear legally on the ballot and as such, that was challenged. So I think there' s a lot of room for indicating that there has never been a two to four year term placed on the ballot in a way that it was not surrounded with any legal challenge to allow the voters to decide that issue. Now I, for one, understand the value of a four year term and as Mrs . Bonk-Abramson indicated, there's pro' s and con' s . I think from a point of view of an elected official, four year terms serve a lot of benefits in not having to run. The cost of elections are extremely expensive. On the other hand, I think two-year terms are very effective by allowing the voters to be able to replace someone that they feel hasn't been responsive or doing the job and I can see both sides of the issue. I'm satisfied with the two year terms and I will be satisfied with four consecutive two-year terms, but I have no objection for the matter as Mr. Ray suggested be placed on the ballot. Thank you. 214