Laserfiche WebLink
The motion to approve the ballot language <br />for CA -6 was carried by the following vote: <br />Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, <br />Kealoha, Nahale -a, Osborne, Shumway, <br />Unger and Chair Haitsuka. <br />Noes: None. <br />Absent: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, and <br />Kawauchi. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to Communication 256.4 and let's look at the language <br />proposed by the League of Women Voters for CA -6. Do I have a motion? <br />Ms. Osborne moved to approve the League of <br />Women Voters proposed summary language <br />for CA -6 as stated in Communication 256.4 <br />Seconded by Mr. Shumway. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? I have a comment. That last line; I know that it <br />came out of the version that was prepared by Mr. Hookano. It states that the police chief, <br />serving under the police commission is already covered by these requirements. I am not so <br />sure that we need that, because the proposed amendment itself doesn't discuss it, I don't <br />know if it's going to be confusing. I'm not sure we need that language in there. <br />The other comment I had was that in the 3rd sentence it says, "A public statement for the <br />reasons for removal must be made, and the affected director must be allowed to respond at a <br />commission hearing" I thought that might be missing some language. I thought it should <br />say, "...must be allowed the opportunity to respond at a commission hearing." It seems like <br />it's missing that language. <br />MR. UNGER: Chairman Ed, can you hear me? I'm in favor of including the word, <br />"opportunity" in there. When the Educational Committee went through the rational, the <br />language and the explanations for these, one of the things we were adamant about was <br />explaining the reasons why these things are on the ballot. I think because the police chief is <br />already covered, and these other department heads are not, that is the reason for the ballot <br />21 <br />