My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN CHC 2000-01-15
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes
>
MIN CHC 2000-01-15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2018 12:12:40 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 8:14:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
2000
Meeting date
1/15/2000
Type
MIN
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
election or do you want to tie it in with the off cycle of the Mayor's election, or you could <br />start with a two-year in 2002, and then go to four years in 2004, if you want. It <br />complicates it. There's not really a legal reason, but it's more to look at the practicality <br />of it. I'm trying to just raise, as part of the practicalities, that perhaps some of your <br />mayoral candidates will come from the ranks of the three at -Targe, and if their terms <br />are co -extensive with the Mayor's term, then their term ends, they run for Mayor. If it's <br />on the off cycle, then in the mid-term of their four-year term, then they run for Mayor. <br />And there's dynamics either way. I just want to point that out. <br />HERKES: But none of those dynamics are things that voters understand, and <br />the problem is that kind of thinking leads us into language on a ballot that the voters <br />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 <br />personalizing it. Just simple language is what we want on our ballot. <br />RAY: Let me ask Chris another question, too. Just the whole idea of a <br />four-year delay for implement - that's a real negative. Things change so much in four <br />years, it just - <br />HERKES: <br />to do. <br />Yes, let's do it. Yes, in four years, we'll think of something different <br />• YUEN: I definitely agree that delaying implementation to 2004 is a <br />negative. I'm bringing up when it takes place and the political connection with the <br />Mayor's term, just as a practical issue that will play a role in the politics of the future, <br />depending 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 <br />in fact we write it, could it be implemented - no, it couldn't be implemented in this <br />election. <br />RAY: John. <br />SANTANGELO: Understanding that I left the room for a moment, then, if we go to <br />the six and three, the four-year on the at -large, and just set it at eight years, and you <br />can't, no matter what, then it's equally unfair to anybody. <br />RAY: That's the motion that's on the floor right now. <br />SANTANGELO: Oh good. So, that's what happened when I was out of the room? I <br />support it. <br />KUROZAWA: But you were here when the motion was made. <br />28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.