Laserfiche WebLink
In a 9 single member district, I think one of <br /> the main arguments that has been presented in behalf of that <br /> is that they wanted local representation because they felt <br /> that the at-large representation took that away. In other <br /> words, gave the more populated areas a so-called control over who <br /> our councilmembers would be and if we had single member <br /> districts, then we would be able to probably have more diverse <br /> representation in the council. <br /> The only weakness I feel in that position is that <br /> because of the makeup of this island and this county, that to <br /> separate and divide this island into 9 single member districts, <br /> I think, what is going to come out is you're going to have <br /> districts whereby a small portion, or a portion of that <br /> district will be able to control that particular representative <br /> or councilman from that specific district which, in turn, will <br /> create a situation where a small portion of residents within <br /> that district will forever be disenfranchised. The problem I <br /> see is where you have a situation where Ka'u might be involved <br /> where you have Naalehu and Pahala and how are you going to <br /> decide a situation where there is a huge rift between, say, <br /> Naalehu and Pahala? The more populated area is going to be <br /> able to control the representative from that district. What <br /> I think the 9 member plan was attempting to correct, might, <br /> instead, be counter-productive. This is one reason why I <br /> believe that at this stage of the development of the County of <br /> Hawaii, this 9 single member district is not workable. And <br /> this is why, I believe, we should have a situation where we do <br /> have some single member representation, some district represent- <br /> ation and then we have some at-large. <br /> I believe that as far as this county is concerned <br /> it' s_,best that we have a ,5-4 form of representation as far as <br /> council members are concerned and this is why I believe we should <br /> have it. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Any other discussion on this? <br /> None? Are you ready for the question? <br /> Mr. Trulson ' s motion <br /> on the floor <br /> would be five <br /> from the districts and four at-large. Right? <br /> Is everybody ready for the question? <br /> Ayes - Cadinha, Noes - Yanaga, <br /> Trulson, Kobayashi, <br /> Iwamoto, Yagong, <br /> Ishida, Omonaka, <br /> Schutte Sensano, <br /> 5 Sakata <br /> - 6 <br /> Not carried. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: In June I voted for the 5-2 <br /> and when I 'left on my vacation, I thought that everthing was <br /> going to be all settled and when I came back everything was up <br /> in the air and because of the options that were not feasible <br /> to put on the ballot and we had to go back to this basic <br /> -5- <br />