MIN CHC 2010-05-21.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

actually think consolidating is a service to the community, but I worry that - - -I think there is more danger for us to get it wrong than to get it right, that we are not going to articulate very well why they are being consolidated; and that is a bigger fear to me. By leaving them separate, the only cost to me is the voter has to go through every proposal, and to me that's the price of a democracy. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. My conception of this consolidation is that we are just grouping already passed amendments into one section; that there isn't additional language, there isn't any change. So, I understand and am somewhat swayed by Ms. Jarman's concern about people maybe having different ideas. But, I think the ones that have been suggested - -and these are the only ones that I would personally approve of - -are all so similar that I am not that concerned about people having different opinions. But, the questions about are we making substantive changes, I thought, based upon our earlier discussion, that is not what is happening. So, I need to be really clear. If that is what is happening, then I would also probably reconsider my votes. MR. NAHALE -A: If I could speak to that. I think I'm right where Mr. Shumway was. guess, to me, leaving each proposal on its own, is as clear as we can be. I think that consolidating them will require some work to articulate why we are consolidating these two or these three and not that one. I think it just brings up confusion in my mind. Keeping them separate, it's crystal clear. That's my current reasoning. CHR. HAITSUKA: I had the same understanding as Mr. Shumway; that we were combining particular proposed amendments just for balloting purposes. The language of the proposed amendments wouldn't change. Mr. Hookano, is that a correct understanding as to what would happen if we combined these proposed amendments? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, Mr. Chair, they would just appear under one ballot question. The language of consolidated CA's would appear under one ballot question. MR. NAHALE -A: But in either case, every single proposal is going to be listed exactly the same way, so we are really not going to lessen the pages of proposals; we just lessen the amount of times folks would have to vote "yes" or "no." But, there is no change in wording at all; they would have to read through every single proposal, but they can vote for this chunk or these three if they so choose. I guess I don't see how much benefit that is to a voter in the voting booth, having to vote only 13 times rather than 19 times. MS. KAWAUCHI: Following Mr. Nahale -a's comments, there is risk of confusion if you group them, even if you provide education and tell them all of these proposals are to be viewed separately. The fact is we went ahead and grouped them, so people are going to think they are all related. I think there is risk of confusion to the voter, although I know the intention behind doing the combinations or consolidations was to save the voter from the arduous task of reading 19 different proposals. But, I think Mr. Nahale -a's point is very well taken, that they are going to be reading them anyway. On top of that, we may be inadvertently giving them the impression that some of these are grouped together and may be all considered as one, as opposed to separate. I'm still not clear on exactly 14