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
second will go along, move that the three year term be changed <br /> to one year. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there anymore discussion <br /> on this? Then on Section 5-1. 2, Mr. Ishida, on qualifications <br /> rather than have that for three years, we change it to one year? <br /> MR. CADINHA: A point of discussion for the <br /> subcommittee, that is working on the other Article, with regard <br /> to the Legislative Branch, that perhaps we carry the one year <br /> throughout for everyone. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: I am assuming legal counsel is <br /> saying that one year can be upheld. <br /> MR. ODA: I am looking at the same summary that <br /> you are looking at. You notice the .California decision on the <br /> middle of the page. . .there is one year residency in the city, <br /> six months in the district was held invalid. •The courts said <br /> thirty days would be okay. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Yes, but the court in Washington <br /> said five years is fine. <br /> MR. ODA: I know. So, you know, you have this <br /> diversion. At least, I would recommend that whatever the <br /> residency requirements are between the mayor and the council that <br /> they be consistent. Otherwise, it is very difficult to justify. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Are we going to vote on this, <br /> Mr. Ishida? <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Richard, onVr. Cadinha' s <br /> proposal for the one year residency for the council, we' ll <br /> consider that next week, right? We' ll take that into consider- <br /> ation when we finalize our decision in the subcommittee. <br /> The motion now stands as Section 5-1. 1 and <br /> Section 5-1 .2 with deletion of( three years) and insert the one <br /> year residency, and 5-1.3 , as is, without any revisions. Is <br /> that clear. We' ll take a roll call vote on Section 5-1. 1 , Section <br /> 5-1.2 and Section 5-1.3. Election and Term of Office; Qualifi- <br /> cations ; Compensation of the mayor' s office. <br /> (A roll call vote was taken and the motion <br /> was carried. ) <br /> SECTION Next, we will go into Section 5-1.4. Powers, <br /> 5-1.4 Duties and Functions. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. On the Section 5-1.4, <br /> Subsection (e) "Recommend to the council a pay <br /> plan for all officers and employees of the county. " If I <br /> remember, there was some input on that, was there not? <br /> -9= <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.