Laserfiche WebLink
far as wanting to make your council person as effective as he possibly can for not just his <br />district, but for the entire island. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Are there any other questions? <br />MR. SHUMWAY: I just want to thank you for coming to talk about this. We have proposed <br />an amendment on this and somebody in Kona already testified against it. I think as Paki said, <br />the education is going to be really important. Hearing you talk from your experience, <br />coming in as a newcomer, and the education process that you have gone through, I think it's <br />really critical that we get that out prior to the election so that people understand it, so thank <br />you. <br />MR. ENRIQUES: Anyway I can help, I'm not worried about - -some people like I said have <br />advised me that I shouldn't go there, because you might lose some votes - -the votes are not as <br />important as the outcome, or the effectiveness of whoever gets inside there. Just a question, <br />if you heard somebody testify against this, most of the people that I've talked to, the idea that <br />what if we get a bad one was the top of the line negative thing; did you hear anything else <br />that I might not be aware of? <br />MR. SHUMWAY: That was basically the gist of her comment, that we may want the <br />opportunity to replace people if necessary. <br />MR. ENRIQUES: That is all I've heard too that has any weight, which has some merit, but <br />then again, if we take the time to look at who we are really voting for, chances are we will <br />vote correctly. I still think all the reasons I put forth far outweigh that one where like, what <br />if. I sit down on your side, and I hear a lot of people come to the council and always have <br />this doomsday attitude about what the worst case scenario would be, but people forget to <br />look at what the possible good might be. We have a bad tendency to focus on the bad things, <br />and try to protect ourselves from the bad things, and we fail to look at what the good things <br />are, time and time again. So, I think there is some good if we look at the four -year things and <br />focus on what they could bring, and I hope maybe I have enlightened you on some of the <br />things I've found as a new council person that have merit for this four -year term. The <br />negative side is like this to me. <br />MR. NAHALE -A: I agree, and I think when the issue gets a little bit more fine tuned, it will <br />be that two -year terms force the council members to go back to the public. So, even if they <br />are good members, that cycle kind of encourages people to go back and walk door to door <br />and things like that. I agree, the pros and cons are far separated, that's why we are trying to <br />move four -year terms forward. In the debate later on, I think that's one of the things you will <br />have to be able to answer is, how we keep the public informed. A lot of the testimony that <br />has been a little negative to us is the belief that there is a lack of transparency right now, low <br />trust, so I think this is a poor way to try to deal with that issue. <br />MR. ENRIQUES: You are absolutely right, and if I may, I'd like to speak to that <br />transparency thing. I think a good council person will be communicating with their <br />constituents anyways. If he's not, in that two years, then you have made a bad choice. One <br />0 <br />