My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN CHC 2000-05-10
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes
>
MIN CHC 2000-05-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2018 12:23:32 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 12:37:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
2000
Meeting date
5/10/2000
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 2000-05-10 SP MTG
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\2000\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
• <br />1 <br />we need to wait to get the Police Commission working so that we have some kind of <br />rules that we can follow that apply to different Commissions. I don't think we need to <br />create more of a brouhaha until we get things straightened out with what we've got. <br />I am in favor of the proposed amendment 5 for a Department of Environmental <br />Services. Sounds like a good thing. <br />9. On a Safety Coordinator. Sounds good. <br />11. is on the Qualifications of the Heads of Department of Public Works and <br />Department of Water Supply, specifically. Yes, I just think it's a good idea to have <br />good qualified people and I think we can make exceptions but, overall, I think that we <br />do need to have qualified people, not necessary somebody gets appointed because <br />they're somebody's cousin or uncle or somehow related. I think the nepotism that we <br />have had for the way it's always been done, kind of thing, here in Hawaii County has <br />really got us pretty deep in shit, if you'll pardon the expression. <br />I also favor the proposed amendment 19, Cost -of -Government Commission, an <br />overview that would suggest ways to reduce the cost of government and increase <br />efficiency. Okay, so that's the yeas. <br />Now, on the nays: <br />2. Amendment on the Council to include 3 at -large seats. No way. Every district <br />must have representation of its own, period. <br />6. Amendment proposal on Planning Department functions. No, and I think it ought <br />to just be deleted completely. <br />The 7th proposed amendment on Legislative Research. I just wanted to ask, well, <br />why do we need a Legislative Auditor's Office? I don't understand. It seems like this is <br />already being done. Do we really need another office here? I don't know I guess you <br />guys know more about it than I am, but unless we really do, I'm not in favor of that. In <br />other words, I would vote nay. <br />On the proposed amendment 8, Holdover of members of Boards and <br />Commissions. I don't think so. I think it does allow the Mayor more authority over <br />keeping things the way that it is if we don't have a good and benevolent Mayor, then <br />think that can get us in trouble. I think our Mayor has far too much power in this <br />County. <br />I'm opposed to proposed amendment 10 on the Planning Commission powers. I <br />think that ought to just be taken out too. It's got to go through the Council, all this stuff <br />— through our elected officials, in other words, not appointees. <br />The 12th proposed amendment on Impeachment. I would just say no, please leave <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.