Laserfiche WebLink
CHR. SIRACUSA: That is up to us; however, we had those maps up, remember, mostly as <br />talking points because there were parts of them that were not satisfactory for one reason or <br />another. We did hear people's testimony back, based on those maps. So, if we use any of <br />them or not doesn't matter too much as long as we know what the testimony was and can <br />incorporate as much as possible into our final plan. At least that is my take on it. Does <br />anybody think otherwise? <br />MR. MELROSE: I think what Dru is asking, is that at some point we have to formally <br />address the end of those. But at this moment in time - - -Is that what you are saying, ultimately <br />we need to go back and formally decide on each of those? <br />MR. KANUHA: I know we started off with the latest versions, and we are kind of working <br />our way back. In the beginning I was assuming we were going to go through all of the maps <br />that were submitted before we started working. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: We can do it any way we want; all somebody has to do is make a <br />suggestion. <br />MR. CARVALHO: I feel that we know as much as we need to know right now about <br />Plan _46, and we need to address the public maps that we presented. We need to say if we are <br />going to hold them over, or whatever we want to do with them. We should address them now, <br />as quickly as we can, if we want to keep them or not. <br />MR. KANUHA: Because the Communication says review and discussion of Redistricting <br />Plans /Maps that have been submitted; which means the plans that have been submitted. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: And you will notice we didn't put in the numbers; we left it wide open to <br />give us the maximum amount of leeway. <br />MR. KANUHA: I'm fine with what the Commission decides. <br />MR. MELROSE: I would like to do it more when Bo is here for the Kona side. If we want to <br />go back to the others; we need to take a formal action on the others, the pending ones. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: Okay, then why don't we start with Plan_10, and take a look at that. <br />Review and Discuss Plan-] 0 <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: Some of these are better for one part of the island than other parts. <br />MR. MELROSE: This one had some variations that were too high. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: It had a -6.80% deviation, but we left it in as a talking point. If I recall, I <br />voted against it because it didn't include Volcano and it divided Puna into an east /west rather <br />than a mauka /mauai . <br />26 <br />