Laserfiche WebLink
minutes 01-15-00Page 18 of 59 <br />and language could be had where anybody else would - eight-year term - <br />RAY: As a one time exception, at the most, it could effect three people, but only if they could get elected, so it doesn’t seem <br />like it’s as big a deal as - <br />SANTANGELO: As we’re making it out to be. <br />RAY: When you first said it. You are just recognizing the changeover and, sort of, grandfathering in an exception to <br />recognize that. <br />HERKES: Can’t we just say limits begin in 2002, if accepted? <br />MARTIN: Then it jumps on a four-year term. <br />IRVINE: We already have term limits. <br />HERKES: Term limits will begin - <br />RAY: We’re already in term limits. <br />HERKES: I know, but term limits for the new Council district offices will begin in 2002. <br />YUEN: Now we’ve been talking about this transition, I think that was the assumption that was being discussed. There is <br />another question that’s now a related question. If the voters in the next election go to a 6-3, whether you want to start that in <br />2002 or 2004. The issue becomes do you want to tie it in with the cycle of the Mayor’s election or do you want to tie it in <br />with the off cycle of the Mayor’s election, or you could start with a two-year in 2002, and then go to four years in 2004, if <br />you want. It complicates it. There’s not really a legal reason, but it’s more to look at the practicality of it. I’m trying to just <br />raise, as part of the practicalities, that perhaps some of your mayoral candidates will come from the ranks of the three at- <br />large, and if their terms are co-extensive with the Mayor’s term, then their term ends, they run for Mayor. If it’s on the off <br />cycle, then in the mid-term of their four-year term, then they run for Mayor. And there’s dynamics either way. I just want to <br />point that out. <br />HERKES: But none of those dynamics are things that voters understand, and the problem is that kind of thinking leads us <br />into language on a ballot that the voters cannot understand. It leads us into a whole bunch of things that voters don’t care <br />about. They want it clear; when does this start; you’re leading the language, you’re personalizing it. Just simple language is <br />what we want on our ballot. <br />RAY: Let me ask Chris another question, too. Just the whole idea of a four-year delay for implement - that’s a real negative. <br />Things change so much in four years, it just - <br />HERKES: Yes, let’s do it. Yes, in four years, we’ll think of something different to do. <br />YUEN: I definitely agree that delaying implementation to 2004 is a negative. I’m bringing up when it takes place and the <br />political connection with the Mayor’s term, just as a practical issue that will play a role in the politics of the future, depending <br />upon how this is decided. <br />RAY: No, I think that’s a good point to bring up. George. <br />MARTIN: With that implementation and staggering it, whether two or four, if in fact we write it, could it be implemented - <br />no, it couldn’t be implemented in this election. <br />RAY: John. <br />SANTANGELO: Understanding that I left the room for a moment, then, if we go to the six and three, the four-year on the at- <br />large, and just set it at eight years, and you can’t, no matter what, then it’s equally unfair to anybody. <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 01-15-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />