Laserfiche WebLink
MR. SCHUTTE: That ' s right. No matter how we <br /> cut it, if we allow the district 2, because of the number, to <br /> have this additional candidate, you are going to have one <br /> additional individual there anyway in numbers. There is no <br /> other way to knock it down. So I am trying to eliminate the <br /> most problems by saying five out of four districts, allowing <br /> Hilo that additional one. The four with residency requirements <br /> I think would take care of the 5-4 concept. That is why I am <br /> suggesting. I , like you mentioned before, don ' t see any <br /> illegal portion of it if we are using, as I questioned before, <br /> the existing districts, representative districts, as a means <br /> of establishing some type of groundwork. <br /> MR. ODA: I would feel , Mr. Omonaka, that if <br /> you had just the opposite, that rather than Hilo having six, <br /> it had only five, you probably could make a bigger argument <br /> for illegality than if they have six. The reason is population <br /> again in district 2. <br /> MR. OMONAKA: My concern is that we are using <br /> the same district two times. <br /> MR. ODA: Right. <br /> MR. OMONAKA: For the basic same legislative <br /> government body. <br /> MR. ODA: One for at-large and one for residency, <br /> yes. <br /> MR. OMONAKA: If you went by multiple district true <br /> you will be using that district just once for that multiple <br /> district setup but you are not going to come back and use that <br /> again to have another body elected-from the district. <br /> MR. ODA: Well , the suggestion, I think , if I <br /> understand it, that is one way of tying down the district <br /> residency requirement for the at-large candidates that are being <br /> suggested. I don ' t think that is the only way you can do it. <br /> There are other alternatives for giving residency designation <br /> to at-large candidates. <br /> MR. OMONAKA: I just wanted to know if it was <br /> legal , the 5 and 6. <br /> MR. ODA: Offhand , I would say that it would <br /> stand-up in court. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Is there any other discussion <br /> on Mr. Schutte ' s proposal? <br /> MR. ISHIDA: A point of order. We are on the <br /> basis of discussing a motion before this body? We are not <br /> continuing a motion from the last time? <br /> MR. SCHUTTE : I think what I did, I asked the <br /> Chair if they would consider opening up this particular portion <br /> for discussion prior to it. <br /> -10- <br />