MIN CHC 2010-08-13.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. GOODENOW: Basically, for CA -7, I took the language from the report of the Charter Commission, subsequent to that we had that one amendment. Fortunately, that was clearly in writing in Mr. Hookano's Communication 257. So, just following the current language now; registered voters for, then subsequently valid votes cast in, is changed with valid votes cast for the office subject to the recall petition in the last election. That is straight from the language in the proposed charter. Same with (2). In (3) the signers are required to provide the month and day of their birth and the last four digits of their social security number. That is in addition to what is already required, the name, residence address, signature. I was general here; to provide more time for the gathering of signatures. It actually changes that from 30 days to 120 days in the case of an island wide race and 90 days for a council race. I just put it like that since that was the language used by Mr. Hookano. Then (5) give the county clerk five more days to verify a petition. If any member would like the report, I have it here. I also have the minutes of the June 25, 2010 meeting and Mr. Hookano's MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, has Mr. Goodenow's communication been given a number? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, this one will be 256.11. Ms. Jarman moved to adopt the ballot language for CA -7 as proposed in Communication 256.11. Seconded by Ms. Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is the motion to replace the language. We have an outstanding motion to adopt the language for CA -7 as contained in Communication 258. MS. JARMAN: Yes, Mr. Chair, the motion is to replace that with this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: May I ask Mr. Goodenow a question? CHR. HAITSUKA: Sure. MS. JARMAN: The only thing that is kind of different, that you left out, and I'm not sure if it needs to be in there, but that the name that shall be reasonable similar to the name as it appears on the general county register. That was highly controversial. Do you think that needs to be in there? MR. GOODENOW: That is correct, the "which shall be reasonably similar," as opposed to just their name. I didn't feel that it really needed to be there, but it would make it less restrictive. But as was it was discussed earlier, that is our current policy. Our current practice is to use reasonable similar. So, I don't know if you would say that is a change, or not. So I did not use it. I note that in some of these other questions, although Mr. Hookano did them, but in my brief review of them, they are summarized in the questions. 37