Laserfiche WebLink
MR. ISHIDA: Anything else concerning the <br /> 7 number? The other one was of course the 4 at-large. <br /> The rationale for that was one, why change, we have 9 now <br /> so why change; -.stick to nine. There doesn ' t appear to be <br /> any real advantage of reducing it from nine to seven. Also, <br /> as far as the diviation of the nine, it was also brought up . <br /> that possibly instead of having just 4 at-large, we could <br /> possibly place some residency requirements so that 2 at-large <br /> could represent West Hawaii and 2 at-large could be representing <br /> East Hawaii. <br /> Another thing that was brought up was that if <br /> there are 4 at-large each voter would be able to vote for <br /> five positions. Of course, those voters who reside in District <br /> 2 would be voting for six, because they have two district <br /> representatives. As far as the other districts are concerned <br /> they would have at least a say in voting for five positions. <br /> Five being at least a majority of the council , whereas , in the <br /> other seven they would be voting for three. I suppose; <br /> basically, that was the argument that was presented generally <br /> :for.. those two positions. <br /> Other issues that were brought up which, in <br /> effect, would affect the number too, in some way, the length <br /> of term in office. There has been testimony presented to the <br /> commission whereby the at-large members would run for a four <br /> year term and district members run for a two year term. <br /> Then, of course, the subcommittee also discussed that all <br /> members run for four year terms regardless of whether they be <br /> at-large or district. <br /> Also, proposals were made concerning staggered <br /> terms. Of course, if we consider two year terms , the issue <br /> of staggered terms really becomes moot except for those areas <br /> for the at-large positions which would be running at four year <br /> terms. There may be some practical problems initially as to <br /> how to determine which positions would run for two year terms <br /> and which positions run for four year terms if we consider <br /> staggered terms. A suggestion was made as far as to solve <br /> that thing that as far as the at-large positions are concerned <br /> whether it be four or whether it be two, in case of two, the <br /> highest vote getter would get the four year term and the next <br /> one of course would get a two year term. If there were four <br /> at-large positions, then the two highest would probably get <br /> the four year and the two lowest would get the two year terms. <br /> On the district level , it could be considered <br /> that the two or three, whether it be two or three district <br /> council members who receive the highest number of votes <br /> proportionately to the number of registered within that <br /> district would be granted the four year terms and the other <br /> remaining district council members would then be receiving the <br /> two year term. <br /> -32- <br />