Laserfiche WebLink
MR. ODA: Mr. Schutte, I noticed in your <br /> suggestion, there was no staggered term included in it. <br /> I may have missed it. Just two years and four years. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE : Not built into it because as <br /> I said, those that run from within the district would run <br /> for two years and those that run at-large with district <br /> requirements of residency would run for four years. <br /> Assuming that would, to some degree, take care of the <br /> continuity, without having to get right down to specifics. <br /> MR. OMONAKA: Well , if it is evident there <br /> is no more discussion, I would like to call for the question. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: That was my point of order <br /> whether we were discussing a motion. If not, then if this <br /> is just a general proposal thing, then I have nothing to <br /> add. If this is ,on the motion then I have an argument. I <br /> would like to say something. I just want to make sure where <br /> we are. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: . . .we' ll go right back to <br /> where we were last week, okay? We' ll pick up on where we <br /> left off on last week ' s motion. :Do you have something on <br /> this, Mr. Ishida? <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Yes , I would like to say something. <br /> The motion , as I understand it, ds for 5 district and 2 at-large. <br /> I want to see if I can convince you people, anyway, that I think <br /> we should go to instead of a 5-2, to some kind of a 5-4 situation. <br /> The reason is this, there has been a lot of concern that we should <br /> consider district representation and I think all of us are in <br /> agreement that this is the way we are going. And also we are in <br /> agreement that really the districting is going to come up after <br /> our 1980 census. Now, if we accept the 5-2 concept now, we are <br /> in fact limiting and restricting what the reapportionment <br /> committee will do. And this, I think , is really inconsistent if <br /> our feeling is to go into districting as much as possible. I <br /> think we should leave it to give the reapportionment commission <br /> more flexibility. <br /> The reason I also say this is because I think <br /> I am safe to assume that the population as far as this county <br /> is concerned is going to increase and we are thinking in terms <br /> of a ten year document. Now if that is the case, I think we <br /> should have sufficient foresight to see that there would be more <br /> representation within the governing body as far as this council <br /> is concerned. If we reduce the number from nine to seven , I <br /> think we are, in fact, defeating that purpose of giving more <br /> representation by the citizens within this county in the <br /> council . This is why I feel we should still stick to the nine <br /> member council . What form of five-four we use now, I am not <br /> advocating anything right now but I just say that we should <br /> stick to the number of nine and give that authority to the <br /> reapportionment to do the redistricting. I don ' t think=-after <br /> one week of consideration , I have somewhat modified my View- as <br /> to what authority that reapportionment committee should be <br /> granted. <br /> -11- <br />