CHC 1979-04-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. CADINHA: Stuart, specifically, let ' s just hypothetically take a situation where the mayor tells the police chief or the water department head to perform a function--do something--and he gets a no. Under our current charter, he turns around and says , well you are under my general supervision and I interpret that to mean that it implies that I am your boss. The commission behind the police chief and behind the water department turns around and says, no, no. We agree with our chief ' s or our department head ' s stand. What process then would take place to determine who is right? Does the corporation counsel render an opinion? MR. ODA: Generally, yes. That would be the situation. Corporation counsel will have to interpret the charter provision regarding the powers of the commission and the powers of the mayor. They have to be looked at and some decision has to be made as to who has got the overseeing authority. Or, whether it is a collateral kind of thing, bilateral,WlhateVer you want to call it. Jurisdiction by both groups. - In general , the commissions , themselves , don ' t really get too much involved in , as I say, the day to day operational `aspects of the executive departments. They meet maybe once a month, at most. Most of these, from what I have seen, most of these just go through the motions of listening to reports by the department heads. They don ' t really act on too many day to day type of decision making matters. In fact, they seldom present it to the commissions for action. Except , perhaps , for the water commission. I would say, that under the present language of that proavision, that perhaps some study should be made between the commission powers; the mayor ' s powers and that specific sentence in the charter. I cannot make any specific recommendation, at this time, because I have to look at it further. Any other questions on that? With regard to the redistricting and reappor- tionment matters. This is again a very controversial area. On the one man, one vote concept, the basic case that we all fall back upon is that Reynolds versus Sims case back in 1964, I believe. As you know, on the mainland , unlike Hawaii they have had quite a bit of racial discrimination. Most of the court cases that have overturned the legislative districting of various states and _counties throughout the nation have been based on the fact that the districting plans that were in existence have been racially motivated to discriminate against negroes and other minorities. For example, let ' s say this island--if you picture the island into--how many districts do we have--six--eight--if you have at-large voting for all nine county councilmen and let ' s assume that in the district of Puna you had predominantly, let ' s say most of the immigrants from the Philippine islands live in the district of Puna. This is just hypothetical . Let ' s say 90% of the Filipinos or members of the Filipino community live in the distr-ict 'of Puna. You have an at-large voting plan, nine councilmen running at-large. The totality„'of the vote of the - 28 -