MIN CHC 2000-01-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RAY: Roland. HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, so upon adoption of this Amendment, we could be very specific, as of this date, a person can run for two -four -two, or whatever, but cannot exceed eight years from that point. Is that something that would be workable? HERKES: As a member of the Council? YUEN: just discussed. That's another alternative. That's different than the one that you HIGASHI: Right. YUEN: All these things can be done. You could go with at -large being four years, and you can serve eight years total, and then that's it. That's an alternative that can be spelled out. HIGASHI: But it's specific. If the two-year people chose to run, they would still go under the old term limit. I mean, that could be specific too, right? YUEN: Right. As it stands, you need to spell that out, how this applies to people who have been running under the district system. But, if we go back to the way you talked about it a couple of minutes ago, where you could do your district term limits and then you'd have a new set of term limits for the at -large, if it were done that way, then somebody in the present Council who had used up their limits, could then go again for at -large. This is another issue we would be talking about, whether you would implement this in 2002 or 2004, but whenever - HIGASHI: But language could be specific upon adoption of the Charter, the person moving from the two-year term to a four-year term still cannot exceed eight years. 1 mean, that can be spelled out, too, right? YUEN: Yes, either way it can be spelled out. RAY: We could research some other jurisdictions; Lexington, Kentucky, they have different term limits for single member and at -large, for instance, and see how they do that, but my pretty strong sense is that the public's spoken very strongly, about term limits, and I'm not in favor of it anyway, so go ahead, put it out there. But if we extend the term limits that way, I just can't imagine that would pass. But, there are inconsistencies in there that don't make sense either. I mean, you serve three terms and you couldn't run for an at -large, which is a shame. You serve two years, then you serve one at -large, then you couldn't serve another at -large term, because your term limits would limit you to two years, so that doesn't seem to make sense either. IRVINE: Maybe this crew wants to reconsider their at -large position. 20