MIN CHC 2000-01-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MARTIN: The motion was pretty simple, to write it as an eight-year cap, with both scenarios, the person and the position, whether it be at -large and/or district.. YUEN: I understand. What George'smotion is is an eight-year max limit, and it's not treated as a separate office so if you've 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. MARTIN: And then the discussion came about, what about these individuals that possibly have six. By the time this is implemented, would they not have the opportunity, and therefore, the discussion. But as Gary was saying, the motion wasn't seconded. RAY: Well, do we have a second? IRVINE: I'll second it. RAY: Okay. Discussion. YOSHIYAMA: Clarification purposes. That's with the understanding that the at - large seat is for four years and the single member two. Okay, thank you. HIGASHI: Has it been established that the four-year is a new office? YUEN: It would not be considered a new office under George's proposal. His motion is that any individual would have eight years on the Council, no matter whether they were at -large or district. HIGASHI: So the person that's serving six years now would be precluded from running for the at -large office. Is that a correct assumption? YUEN: After he made that motion, then that was the discussion we started off on, and I think the way that the motion was 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 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 going into the transition, but it should be applicable on into the future because if you want to allow a Council member to serve ten years, why should that apply to just the Council members who happen to be on two- year terms now, as opposed to 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 you would, in effect, treat the existing Council members differently than the Council members in the future. IRVINE: Because they were unaware of this law at the time that they ran for their third term, whereas they might have gone at -large at that time. They're in a different situation because they didn't know that we had this new law changing the 26