Laserfiche WebLink
MR. HOOKANO: This Commission decided that issue twice already. So it is up to the <br />Chair to make a ruling on whether that is a proper amendment or whether it is a dilatory <br />motion. <br />MS. KAWAUCHI: My argument would just be that at the last meeting I moved to <br />amend just the number, and at this meeting I'm moving to amend the language, "not less <br />than 2 %." <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman <br />MS. JARMAN: I wasn't at the last meeting, so at the last meeting your amendment was <br />to change it to a straight 2 %? <br />MS. KAWAUCHI: That's correct, that was my intention. <br />MS. JARMAN: This is not a straight 2% but similar to the other one, but up to 2 %; not <br />less than 2 %. <br />MR. FUERTES: Mr. Chair, was there a second on her motion? <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: No, there is no second. <br />MS. JARMAN: I'll second it. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, there is a second. Is there any discussion? <br />MR. HOOKANO: So, Mr. Chair, is it your ruling that this is a proper motion? <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm still trying to understand what the proposed amendment is. I'm <br />looking through the draft right now. <br />MS. KAWAUCHI: Just to fill in if it helps, my intention here today is to move to amend <br />CA -15 to say, "not less than 2 %." The entire language would be, "not less than 2 %." <br />Particularly in paragraph (b) (5) and in the other sections of the amendment that states, <br />"not less than ' /z of 1% (0.5 %). <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: It seems like the same thing to me that we went over at the last <br />meeting. <br />MR. KAULUKUKUI: I think - -and we can double check with Mr. Hookano - -this body <br />twice has considered a 2% amendment to this proposed Charter amendment. Is that <br />correct? Twice in the past; and twice in the past it has failed. <br />37 <br />