|
minutes 12-04-99Page 5 of 39
<br />HIGASHI: At the Honokaa meeting, this issue surfaced and I was responsible for putting something in writing that we could,
<br />kind of, look at, and either accept, amend, or reject. So this is the proposal that I have, composed of nine members. We’d
<br />have six districts, three members elected at-large. The members that would be at-large would serve four years. The members
<br />that are running from their districts would serve a term of two years, and at this point in time, we still have the term limit in
<br />there, not to exceed eight consecutive years. And if needed, we drafted a Reapportionment Commission statement. The
<br />present language may be sufficient, but it was drawn up anyway. So Mr. Chair, at this point, I’d like to move that we adopt
<br />the proposal that we have circulated.
<br />RAY: Okay, do I have a second?
<br />YOSHIYAMA: Second.
<br />RAY: Discussion? Can I ask a point of clarification on the at-large terms? Would they be a term limit of two?
<br />HIGASHI: Eight consecutive years.
<br />BESS: Yes, we need to specify. We need to clean up that language.
<br />HIGASHI: Yes, we need to, kind of, specify. I think the language should be eight consecutive years.
<br />RAY: But that would be your understanding that the at-large -
<br />HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, unless, at some point in time, we do away with term limits, and want to be consistent, but I don’t want
<br />to tie in the term limits with this proposal because people may be against term limits and down the whole proposal.
<br />RAY: I believe it fairly common that the at-large Council members have longer term limits. Anyway, that’s something I’d
<br />like to look into, and the rationale behind that.
<br />IRVINE: Longer term - longer term limit?
<br />HIGASHI: But Mr. Chair, I would rather this be in place and the term limit section be separate. I wouldn’t want this proposal
<br />to go down because term limits did not pass last time. So I want to, kind of, separate it if I can.
<br />RAY: Okay. Open for discussion. John.
<br />SANTANGELO: I want to speak for and against it.
<br />HERKES: Well, do it one at one time and one at another, not at the same time.
<br />SANTANGELO: I’ll speak ‘for’ first and then I’ll speak ‘against’ afterwards.
<br />The reason that I like this type of proposal is, as it stands right now, if you talk to anybody, they’ve got one Council member
<br />to go to because that’s who they elect, and so you’ve got that supposed champion. With three at-large, you’ve got three
<br />people that are also beholden because of your vote, and that’s where we seem to be going today, that we only address whom
<br />votes for us. So technically, the case can be made that if you go to the Council with a concern, you, supposedly, if it has
<br />merit, have four advocates, to start with, out of nine. And that, I think, is a good thing. The fact that we have four years is
<br />good and that you’re running people at-large is very, very different from single member, and it maintains the integrity and the
<br />wish of the public to have a single member. So, I really support this. I think it’s good government.
<br />The problem I have, and I just bring that up for discussion, is everywhere I’ve taken this, the perception has been that they’re
<br />getting screwed, and so we have to deal with that. If we’re going to put something up from this Commission, that’s trying
<br />very hard to serve the people, how does that play. And I’ll guarantee you that everything we’ve seen in the Press so far, when
<br />we’ve talked about - we’ve never talked about eliminating single member but the Press has always slanted it, and colored it
<br />with at-large where the public’s perception, in any discussions we have had, that it attacks single member. So, thank you.
<br />RAY: George.
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-04-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|