Laserfiche WebLink
RECONVENE: At 5 :05 p.m. the meeting reconvened with all <br /> members present with the exception of Mr. Ishida <br /> who was excused. <br /> RESIDENCY MR. CADINHA: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of <br /> REQUIREMENTS: legal counsel . <br /> Stuart, what constitutes--what is a constitu- <br /> tionally proper term of qualification for residency? I 'm <br /> assuming that a lot of this is going to be rewritten. <br /> MR. ODA: Are you referring to Section 3-3? <br /> MR. CADINHA: Yes. Two years, would it hold up <br /> if a person said. . . ? <br /> MR. ODA: I 'd have to look into that. When I <br /> first read this it raised a little question in my mind. There may <br /> be some problems with the residency requirements. <br /> MR. CADINHA: I then move, along with the one <br /> man, one vote and general supervision research that Stuart has <br /> to do that he research what a proper term of residency would be <br /> for a qualification of elected officials. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Chairman . In reference to <br /> Mr. Cadinha' s question, either the first or second session we had, <br /> I believe, there is a legal opinion that was from the corporation <br /> counsel ' s office'regarding that particular section. There have <br /> been one or two various legal opinions written in regards to that. <br /> Of it being unconstitutional and that it be deleted. If you check <br /> the minutes of the Corporation Counsel Steve Bess' his testimony <br /> indicates that that should be changed. <br /> MR. CADINHA: To nothing? Or can one year still <br /> suffice? <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: I don ' t know exactly but the way <br /> it stands now, it is not legal . <br /> MR. ODA: We have to look into that. I think <br /> two years would be illegal. The question is, what is the minimum. <br /> I think if we are talking about something like 6 months or so, it <br /> might stand up. I ' ll have to look into it. <br /> MR. TRULSON: We do have .a Communication #4 and <br /> Session #4 where it was brought up. If you look in your index <br /> it shows the residency requirement for the council as Communica- <br /> tion 4 and Session 4. That may help. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Communication 4 is from Ted <br /> Suzuki , County Clerk and this dated November 10, 1975 addressed <br /> to Mr. Clifford Lum and says, "In your opinion rendered on June <br /> 29, 1972 and reaffirmed on October 6, 1975 , you advised that the <br /> two year resident elector requirement for a person to qualify for <br /> election to the County Council was unconstitutional and, therefore, <br /> unenforceable. " <br /> - 10 - <br />