2000-07-12 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

Charter Commission - Transcript of Meeting of July 12, 2000Page 6 of 45 of a wholesale dismissing of people because of this redistricting, or does it make sense that even though you come from that district, there’s people in that district you may not, or you may, represent? I mean, we get so tied down to specific impressions vs. the reality of it. Why do we have this in here if we tried to limit for success and then suddenly we’re out to 16 with something like this? And I may have missed the importance of it. That’s all. RAY: To me, it seems like an issue worth addressing. I can see where, practically speaking, it absolutely could be a problem that somebody would raise it as an issue. Thinking Waimea, Waimea-Hamakua, that boundary line there, the way it moves around. I know people that live right there on the cusp that were upset when they weren’t Waimea all of a sudden. They were Hamakua or whatever, right? I think it is an issue that would be good to clean up. SANTANGELO: Well, making it in compliance with Council may not be where it’s at because one’s elected and the appointment may go beyond and election. IRVINE: Yes, but it was just in the explanation, to explain why we’re doing this, if we want it to pass, such as Council members continue to serve even though redistricted, or something. KUROZAWA: John, is there any way we can incorporate this in 14? We just worked an amendment saying that if we were to change the structure, they can serve their remainder to term. Is there any way we can put that into one amendment instead of doing two amendments? YUEN: Unfortunately, this was meant to apply to all the Boards and Commissions that have district residency requirement which would include ones that we’re not touching anywhere else, like the Planning Commission, the Police Commission, as well as the three that we’re changing in this Charter. If it had just been the ones that we were changing, to have a district residency requirement then we could stick that in each one of those and we wouldn’t have to add one on. But there’s the Police and Planning Commissions floating out there where redistricting could effect the eligibility or could look like it might effect the eligibility. SANTANGELO: But Chris, if it’s silent on that, and the only place where you’ve said anything is here, wouldn’t you go to this and say the intent of any Charter Commission and the Charter itself would be to make sure there was continuity? And I don’t mean to waste a lot of time arguing – YUEN: Well, right now it’s a gray area, and then if the voters are presented with it, but it only deals with Water and Liquor, well, they only change it to Water and Liquor and it’s still a gray area for the others. You can’t really draw any conclusions about what the voters wanted to do for Planning and Police. RAY: George. MARTIN: Talking about putting the cart before the mule, not a problem here. I think what we need to do, Chris, is put more explanation as to why this would come about. And the reapportionment is from another Commission doing something. I think that some of the confusion for the voters would be why are we doing this when we are not moving our Council people around as we had earlier started to talk about with that 6-3 situation. That’s dead and gone but that’s where I think some confusion would come in. So the reapportionment comes in from a different entity, not us, and if that takes place, then this would fall into being, yes? YUEN: Yes, reapportionment only became an issue when single member districts were adopted in the file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 07-12-00.html7/1/2011