|
•
<br />they'd already been for six years, they would be in for ten years vs. the eight years.
<br />The reason that seems to make sense is, presumably, the guys that would want to run
<br />for at -large would be people that were more experienced, that had some background,
<br />so if you totally eliminated that group, it just seems, kind of, odd to do it that way. So,
<br />that's one possibility that we could do it that way, or. we have the first at -large term just
<br />be for two years vs. the four years. So, those are some of the things we're looking at.
<br />The other issue, which we haven't figured out a really clean way to deal with this, is if
<br />you did away, if we did away, as voters, if we did away with the nine Council seats, how
<br />would that effect the Commissions that are tied to the nine Council Districts, and right
<br />now, we have two Commissions, Planning and Police, that the Commissions are tied to
<br />the nine Council Districts, and we're also proposing, as a Charter Amendment, to make
<br />the Water Commission tied to those Commissions. So, the dilemma we've got is if the
<br />nine Council seats were to be eliminated, then those districts wouldn't officially exist
<br />anymore. They would be gone. So, we'd like to keep the geographic distribution in the
<br />nine districts, so we're trying to come up with some language which we hope will work,
<br />that could possibly refer to, if the at -large seats were passed, in terms of the
<br />Commissions, that they would be tied to the Council Districts as they existed in the year
<br />2000. That's generally okay. It's not perfect. It could always be subject to challenge by
<br />somebody because you wouldn't have legally defined districts anymore, so it's not a
<br />perfect way to deal with it, but that's something, I just wanted to bring your attention,
<br />we're struggling with. But we are definitely not in favor of eliminating the nine district
<br />make-up for those Boards and Commissions, and in fact like I said, we'd like to expand
<br />it with the Water Commission. So that's the discussion there.
<br />Just to step back a little bit, and I'm sure you can tell from the way I'm discussing this,
<br />this is very much a work in progress. We're still in the middle of discussing how a lot of
<br />this would work. We're very open to input, but we wanted to get something out sooner
<br />rather than later. The third item -
<br />FORD: Mr. Ray?
<br />RAY: Yes ma'am.
<br />FORD: Before you leave number 2, could you just explain how we got nine
<br />districts right now? If number two is not passed, will the nine districts remain exactly as
<br />they are today?
<br />RAY:
<br />Chris?
<br />YUEN:
<br />Yes they will, and I think that was voted in in 1992. Is that right,
<br />'90.
<br />RAY: 1990. It took place in 1992. It was voted in in 1990 and it started in
<br />'92, the nine single member districts. Yes, so that would be no change.
<br />4
<br />
|