|
minutes 12-08-99Page 25 of 31
<br />J. OTTERSON: You need some new blood. I hate to say it.
<br />M. HERKES: We understand.
<br />J. OTTERSON: Okay.
<br />M. HERKES: Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. I appreciate your humor, too.
<br />J. OTTERSON: I appreciate you having us.
<br />RAY: We really apologize for all the mis-connections in the past.
<br />J. OTTERSON: Well, the main thing is I got in and got to get this off my chest.
<br />SANTANGELO: Thank you, guys.
<br />M. HERKES: Keep pushing.
<br />RAY: Does anybody need a little break?
<br />M. HERKES: No.
<br />SANTANGELO: No, pau already. We’re going to go.
<br />RAY: Chris and I were discussing some of the things we talked about on Saturday, and I just want to, quickly, so we’ve all
<br />got those in our mind - In terms of the issue of should we put forth a different Council make-up, a mixed single district and
<br />at-large seats. If we were to recommend that, some of the things that we need to resolve, as a consequence of that. Have you
<br />got those written down?
<br />YUEN: Yes. Just to flesh out the vote that was taken to propose a six single member district and three at-large. I think there
<br />are a few further things that have to be determined, to go along with that. One is how would term limits operate on that?
<br />Would it be eight years on the Council, no matter what your term was? The second would be when would this be
<br />implemented? Would it be implemented in 2002, in which case, if the at-large people are elected on a four-year cycle, then
<br />their terms are not in cycle with the Mayor’s cycle, or rather in 2004, at which time they would be in cycle with the Mayor’s?
<br />That has some political implications for Council people eventually running for the Mayor’s Office, and having to resign to
<br />run if they are in the middle of their terms, rather than at the end of their terms. Then, the Commission has previously voted
<br />to put non-partisan on the ballot, and then the question would be how would the at-large, because the proposal that was made
<br />basically worked as a multi-member district - As I understand it, there would be three votes cast in the same race, for three at-
<br />large members. And so, I presume, that if any one or more got 50% or more in, essentially, the primary election, that they
<br />would be elected outright. But then, we need to decide if you don’t elect them all outright, how many get carried over to the
<br />next ballot? And really, the possibilities would be, if you still had three left over, you could have three more carried over, or
<br />you could have two more carried over, or you could just pick from the top four, and the same thing with being two or one.
<br />You could double it or you could add it. These are just decisions that have to be made to go along with the six-three proposal.
<br />SANTANGELO: Just a couple of things. I guess, when Steve brought that up, that there was that discussion that it wouldn’t -
<br />I think that the initial proposal, whoever brought it up, was it you?
<br />BESS: No, it was Roland.
<br />SANTANGELO: Roland. That it would stick within the eight-year term. Although, I think it’s interesting to say that you
<br />could treat it like a separate office, so you wouldn’t go beyond that part of it.
<br />RAY: I don’t think that was, at all, clear. I think the discussion was that we would discuss that further, and we would also
<br />depend on the input we got from the public, going around, and this and that, as far as any decision on that.
<br />SANTANGELO: But in the non-partisan part of it, this model is used in many, many other places. They must be non-
<br />partisan. Also, is it only used in a partisan election?
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-08-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|