CHC 1979-07-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : Any further discussion on the intent? MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Chairman. Why don ' t we take a vote on the motion as revised and then we can go back to - whether we want to do something on the apportionment section. As I understand the motion, the Section 3-2 has been withdrawn. Deferred and we could vote on the remainder. MR. TRULSON: Call for the question. CHAIRMAN SCHUTTE : No further discussion? I ' ll call for the question. Ayes - Cadinha, Kobayashi, Noes - None Iwamoto, Ishida, Yanaga, Trulson, Absent - Sakata Yagong, Omonaka, - 1 Sensano. Schutte - 10 Carried. Motion is carried. Any further discussion on the balance of the ballot? MR. TRULSON: Mr. Chairman. Just so that I am clear on the intent that we want. . .that is if the majority of the people request a change, a plurality of that majority can dictate which change it is going to be. Option #1 , #2, or #3. MR. ISHIDA: That ' s what you want? MR. TRULSON: No, that is what I 'm looking at it as' my reasoning of the intent. That ' s what I feel it is. But am I alone in that assumption? MR. ISHIDA: My view is just that I go along with you to the extent that it is very difficult for me to accept the plurality in this case, the example from the plurality from the six then governs and overrides the four that voted for status quo. What I would like to see, if at all possible, is that regardless of whether voters vote yes or no on one they all are required to vote on the three options. And then we accept the plurality. I can see problems there but at least all have the opportunity. . . MR. ODA: How do you get a majority? MR. ISHIDA: You don ' t get a majority. Would you need a majority at that time, in view of the statutory language? MR. ODA: Do I understand your question, Richard? Are you saying that even if that example there where four people ,out of ten voters vote no change and six vote yes. . . the four who voted for no change, also vote for the options? -36-