My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COMM. 086
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Agendas
>
Communications (agenda items)
>
COMM. 086
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:52 AM
Creation date
7/17/2018 8:38:11 AM
Metadata
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-08-14
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\1980\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
NORTH and SOUTH <br /> KOHALA .` <br /> 4-11 <br /> WEST HAWAII COMMITTEE <br /> NORTH and SOUTH <br /> $ POST OFFICE BOX 1761 / KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII 96740UNA August 3, 1979 <br /> KAT <br /> Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman <br /> and Members of Hawaii County <br /> Charter Commission <br /> County Office Building <br /> 25 Aupuni Street <br /> Hilo, Hi 96720 <br /> Commissioners : <br /> As we understand it, the intent of the Commission is to give <br /> the public the opportunity of choice as to how the County <br /> Council should be constituted and elected. This is only <br /> proper because the Charter is the peoples' charter to its .. <br /> government, not the other way round. <br /> As we read the minutes of the Commission's meetings, and <br /> from our personal attendance, the reason there should be <br /> choices is that this Commission realized that there was a <br /> real uncertainty about what the electors wanted. <br /> Now, interpretation of the charter amendment statute has <br /> raised a roadblock about giving this choice to the people. <br /> This roadblock is the necessity to have a majority vote <br /> in order to adopt or revise any provision of the County <br /> Charter. <br /> Further, it has been stated that this requirement makes a <br /> ballot design impossible unless there is only one alternative <br /> to a present charter provision. <br /> We consider this fallacious reasoning. We believe that there <br /> can be two alternative provisions to a present provision <br /> and still permit a ballot that meets the apparent legal <br /> requirement for a majority vote on each proposition. <br /> We submit to you that a ballot concerning section 3-2 can <br /> COW. Na lS Com' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.