Laserfiche WebLink
minutes 01-15-00Page 17 of 59 <br />HIGASHI: I didn’t hear any motion. <br />RAY: I thought George had made a motion to - <br />MARTIN: The motion was pretty simple, to write it as an eight-year cap, with both scenarios, the person and the position, <br />whether it be at-large and/or district. <br />YUEN: I understand. What George’s motion is is an eight-year max limit, and it’s not treated as a separate office so if you’ve <br />been in the district for eight years, you cannot run at-large. If you’ve been at-large eight years, you cannot run for the district. <br />MARTIN: And then the discussion came about, what about these individuals that possibly have six. By the time this is <br />implemented, would they not have the opportunity, and therefore, the discussion. But as Gary was saying, the motion wasn’t <br />seconded. <br />RAY: Well, do we have a second? <br />IRVINE: I’ll second it. <br />RAY: Okay. Discussion. <br />YOSHIYAMA: Clarification Purposes. That’s with the understanding that the at-large seat is for four years and the single <br />member two. Okay, thank you. <br />HIGASHI: Has it been established that the four-year is a new office? <br />YUEN: It would not be considered a new office under George’s proposal. His motion is that any individual would have eight <br />years on the Council, no matter whether they were at-large or district. <br />HIGASHI: So the person that’s serving six years now would be precluded from running for the at-large office. Is that a <br />correct assumption? <br />YUEN: After he made that motion, then that was the discussion we started off on, and I think the way that the motion was <br />stated, it would not allow the person to go six plus four. It’s up to you folks, of course, whether you want to allow the six plus <br />four, but if you are going to allow six plus four, it should be not just for the Council members who happen to be in office now <br />going into the transition, but it should be applicable on into the future because if you want to allow a Council member to <br />serve ten years, why should that apply to just the Council members who happen to be on two-year terms now, as opposed to <br />ten years from now if somebody served six years in the district and they want to go to a four-year term. I don’t know why <br />you would, in effect, treat the existing Council members differently than the Council members in the future. <br />IRVINE: Because they were unaware of this law at the time that they ran for their third term, whereas they might have gone <br />at-large at that time. They’re in a different situation because they didn’t know that we had this new law changing the rules. <br />MARTIN: Pre-existing. Grandfathering. <br />IRVINE: Yes, grandfathering. <br />RAY: John. <br />SANTANGELO: And, conversely, if someone who is fortunate to only be four years, then they would have that opportunity <br />to run for that, and that would give them advantage over the other Council member that didn’t, so I don’t know, Chris, I may <br />agree with you, but not for that reason. I would be not condoning ten-year terms, period, but maybe on a changeover time, an <br />adjustment period, because we did that. <br />RAY: Roland. <br />HIGASHI: The language can be very clear on adoption. We could allow the present Councilmen to run for a four-year term, <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 01-15-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />