|
minutes 01-15-00Page 11 of 59
<br />if it’s the at-large seat. Isn’t it?
<br />RAY: I don’t think it’s entirely obvious to anybody, and one of the big issues in regard to term limits had to do with vesting
<br />retirement, so that’s very much on the -
<br />HERKES: Isn’t it funny the voters didn’t think about that a lot.
<br />YUEN: Not something that they were really worried about.
<br />RAY: But, isn’t that something else we need to consider?
<br />YUEN: You’re absolutely right, and because this is something that’s new, it needs just to be decided, and John is right to add
<br />that on there. It can be done either way, but it should be spelled out so the people look at it and there’s no uncertainty. And is
<br />it going to be considered as a new office if you do your eight years as a district Council member, and you’re looking at, oh, I
<br />want to stay on the Council, can you run for at-large, whether it’s two or four, and is that going to count. Any way is legal.
<br />It’s up to the Commission to make a decision, and those are the options, really.
<br />RAY: Okay.
<br />HIGASHI: I would say, if you would send us a memo in writing and having it addressed categorically, then we can eliminate
<br />those questions one by one at our next meeting.
<br />RAY: I’d like to hear what people are thinking. To me, I think the at-large seats, which I’m not in favor of, but if there are
<br />going to be at-large seats, I think they should be four-year terms vs. two-year terms. So, that’s one thing we need to decide.
<br />And then I’m not as sure on the term limit thing regarding a new office.
<br />HIGASHI: On the new office. If there is a term limit, then we need to decide. I think it would be two separate issues. No term
<br />limit may appear on the ballot if we decide to test whether a term limit is required. Every two years is an election. And if a
<br />term limit does exist, then we need to make sure we have language in there. If the term limit is eliminated, then it becomes,
<br />whether we have it in, it just be eliminated. A new office thing, I think is more intriguing than the 4 two-year.
<br />RAY: Marni.
<br />HERKES: I, kind of, think of elections as term limits. I don’t think of term limits per se, but I’m not against them. It’s just
<br />not something that I think is important because elections are term limits. But, I think that the at-large seats are different
<br />constituency. It’s a larger constituency. It’s a different office, and therefore, I don’t think the at-large should be tied into the
<br />term limits for the single member districts.
<br />RAY: George.
<br />MARTIN: I disagree with that, and I think that we’re talking about a Council person, as the old system used to be, running at-
<br />large, and still a Council person. If you’re going to call it something different, then call it something different. But, as long as
<br />it’s a Council person, and that’s what we’re talking about, then the term limits should stand. How we deal with it, whether it
<br />be two-four, or I’ve even heard somebody mention two-four-two. However we deal with it is fine, but the term limit at eight
<br />years has got to stand because the public spoke two or three elections in concession, that they wanted a term limit. To make a
<br />change now, we’re fooling ourselves. That ain’t going to happen.
<br />RAY: I’m glad you brought that up. I forgot to acknowledge Councilman Elarinoff who did send in testimony in regard to a
<br />possible suggestion, and the two-four-two scenario. So I wanted to acknowledge him for that. Okay, John.
<br />SANTANGELO: I agree that it’s two separate elections and therefore, I would separate the term limits because an at-large is
<br />a different constituency. In talking to the public, again, it’s hot and cold, in that you get people that are vehemently against
<br />this because they feel like, again, that there’s a thing going on. But, people who did support it were more in tune with the
<br />two-year vs. the four-year, so you keep the continuity of the two-year. And again, it’s public perception vs. reality. I favor the
<br />6-3 because I think it’s fair in government, having served there. And just for the purpose of dialoguing, the way elections are
<br />done today, and the lack of participation, any group of people on this island that feels like Hilo holds the power, the leverage,
<br />because they elect, if in any district, you could get 10% or 15% more to vote, because it’s always 50% or less, any district
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 01-15-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|