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
C. Bethea: Need a reapportionment plan adopted as <br /> part of the district proposal . The reapportionment <br /> plan will set up standards for the reapportionment <br /> committee. Yuen: Also need to decide how selection <br /> of committee will be handled (1: 2: 30) ; committee needs <br /> to decide where a district ends , at what number. A <br /> fixed baseline may create problems . <br /> D. Juvik: Proposes a 7-member reapportionment <br /> committee. Mayor would appoint three without Council <br /> approval ; Council appoints three; and those six <br /> appoint the chair from outside the group (proposition <br /> No. 1) . You can use an appointee from each of 6 <br /> districts . Bethea: Questioned the need of <br /> geographical areas being represented. If yes , have <br /> mayor appoint and the Council approve; if not , accept <br /> Dr. Juvik' s 3-3-1 proposal , using Police Commission <br /> language for the geopgrahical areas , but having mayor <br /> appoint and Council confirm (proposition No. 2) . A <br /> hand count was taken in which two voted for <br /> proposition No. 1 and the rest voted for proposition <br /> No. 2. <br /> E. Bethea: Re reapportionment committee, questioned <br /> whether residency is important; took a straw vote: <br /> 1 . L'Orange: No. Diverse interests more <br /> important. <br /> 2. Greenwell: Residency unimportant. Council <br /> members are presently all elected at- large, and <br /> they still fight among themselves . <br /> 3 . Juvik: Geographical representation is <br /> important. <br /> 4. Cushnie: Geographical representation is <br /> important. Has noticed that even at-large <br /> electees gravitate toward needs in their areas <br /> once they are in office. <br /> 5. Nishikawa: Geographical important. <br /> 6 . Poppe: Geographical . <br /> 7. Lum: Geographical unnecessary; appointees <br /> should be neutral . <br /> 8 . Bethea: Geographical unnecessary. <br /> 671 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.