My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-06-05
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
CHC 1979-06-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 9:45:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
6/5/1979
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-06-05
(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.
/
30
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
MR. CADINHA: And the governor isn ' t considered <br /> in that category? <br /> MR. ODA: What category? <br /> MR. CADINHA: - Officers, whether elected or <br /> appointed shall be citizens. . .the governor has a five year <br /> residency, doesn ' t he? And the Supreme Court threw out a <br /> three year residency? <br /> MR. ODA: The Hawaii Supreme Court, yes. <br /> MR. CADINHA: But before you can run for governor, <br /> you've got to be here five years. <br /> MR. ODA: They just decide on the question that <br /> is presented them. They don ' t expand the decision. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Then, theoretically, we can use <br /> anything we want and if it is challenged and thrown out in court, <br /> then it ' s invalid. Until such time, it is valid. <br /> MR. ODA: Not necessarily, I think you have to <br /> be guided by present rules. You cannot just say, okay, we' ll <br /> let them challenge it and set up a five year or ten year, whatever. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Could we not use this Hays case as <br /> supporting our three year residency for county elected- office? <br /> MR. ODA: I don 't think the Hays case is that <br /> relevant because it deals with a state level office. I think <br /> the distinction. . . <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Elected. . . <br /> MR. ODA: Yes. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Why do you say the York is more <br /> applicable to the county? <br /> MR. ODA: Because the York case dealt with all <br /> levels of government service, whereas the Hays case just dealt <br /> with state legislative office. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: And you see no distinction between <br /> employees and elected officers? <br /> MR. ODA: No, I didn ' t:say that. The distinction <br /> between the two cases is. . .the York case, the one with the three <br /> year requirement for civil service jobs dealt with all realms. <br /> Something that affected all government agencies, including county <br /> government. Whereas, the Hays case did not. All it affected was, <br /> I think, the state senate, at that time. As a matter of fact, <br /> right now, I suspect that if the Hays case was to go up before <br /> the Hawaii Supreme Court again, I 'm not sure whether they would <br /> uphold the same decision. <br /> -7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.