My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN CHC 1989-11-14
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1990
>
Minutes
>
MIN CHC 1989-11-14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2018 3:28:37 PM
Creation date
4/9/2018 3:28:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1989
Meeting date
11/14/1989
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1989-11-14
(Related To)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\1990\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
limits for campaign spending. Greenwell : If <br /> campaign districts are set up, candidates would <br /> have less expenses (Tape 1 : 1 : 38) ; and candidates <br /> would be closer to constituents . <br /> 2. Nagasako: A seven-member Council is adequate; a <br /> nine-member Council was instituted to balance the <br /> six district members with three at-large <br /> members. Bethea: Asked whether the County <br /> should retain its 4-year terms if the present <br /> at-large system were retained. Nagasako: If <br /> representatives dealing with national problems <br /> serve only two-year terms, cannot justify why <br /> Council members should serve four years. <br /> Supports the at-large system. <br /> 3 . Juvik: Questioned whether previous Charter <br /> Commissions discussed making Council seats <br /> non-partisan. Nagasako: Believes it was <br /> discussed. <br /> V. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 : District variations and reapportion- <br /> ment discussed <br /> A. Juvik: A motion was made at the last meeting <br /> that an optional districting plan would be presented <br /> to residents to vote on. Yuen: To include a specific <br /> district form on the ballot , a majority vote of all <br /> is necessary, sa majority <br /> members not justJ Y <br /> of those present at the meeting. Commission members <br /> were polled on their preferences for district <br /> elections (all single-member districts or a mix of at- <br /> large and single-member) : <br /> 1. Bethea: Refrained from voting because is <br /> opposed to 9 single-member districts; but would <br /> alternatively vote for a 6 - 3 option because it <br /> is most similar to totally at-large. Feels <br /> issues of reapportionment and single-member <br /> districts belong to a package. L'Orange: Doesn' t <br /> feel package should be offered to voters. <br /> 2. Lum: Refrained from voting because is <br /> opposed to 9 single-member districts; feels <br /> council should work together as a group, rather <br /> than considering individual district needs. If <br /> the commission is offering a choice based on <br /> public testimony, a city manager option should <br /> also have been offered to the voters based on the <br /> number of citizen responses heard by the <br /> commission. Would prefer; 6 - 3 option if <br /> single-member districts is to be on ballot. <br /> 669 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.