Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Santos. In your planning <br /> department and department of research and development proposal <br /> you propose that they should be combined into a single department. <br /> And also you propose that the provisisn to provide that the head <br /> of the department need not be one whose education and work <br /> background be in planning. What was the rationale behind this <br /> not requring the education and work background in planning? <br /> MR. SANTOS: Simply, that we don ' t feel either <br /> of those departments should have as its head someone who is <br /> technically skilled in that particular endeavor. For example, <br /> Mr. Chairman, I think you are aware that you or I can legally <br /> be appointed chief of police in this county, but yet neither <br /> your nor I could be appointed head of the department of public <br /> works or the department of planning. Again we feel that just <br /> as in the state department of planning and economic development <br /> we had for some time a gentleman there who was, by training, a <br /> planner, we now have a gentlemen heading that department who <br /> has no background in planning and judging from the hue and cry <br /> that was raised when it seemed like his reappointment was in <br /> danger, I think that, by and large, the people of the State:,of <br /> Hawaii think that HidetojKono, has done a fantastic job even <br /> though he does not have any educational background in planning. <br /> MR. TRULSON: Mr. Santos. Regarding boards and <br /> commissions. What is the rationale behind this provision? <br /> MR. SANTOS : I thought it would be rather obvious , <br /> Mr. Trulson. On at least two occasions the ethics commission has <br /> ruled that people who are in the real estate profession cannot <br /> serve on the planning commission. We feel this is wrong and we <br /> feel very definite that if someone had the financial resources <br /> to take this matter to court, and the desire to do so, that it <br /> would be proven unconstitutional . <br /> MRS. KOBAYASHI : Mr. Santos. Why is it seven <br /> councilmen instead of nine as we presently have? <br /> MR. SANTOS : I think that the majority of the <br /> joint committees that we have had studying this wanted to <br /> recommend a five member council but we were very doubtful that <br /> we could sell the members of the Charter Commission on this <br /> or if we were successful in doing that that you could sell the <br /> people, the voters , on it. We feel that with a smaller group <br /> there would be far less chance for factionalism and I might add <br /> that in thevery large County of Los Angeles, there are only <br /> five councilmen , or as they are called there, members of the <br /> board of supervisors. Certainly, if they can handle the affairs <br /> for a county the size of Los Angeles, seven should be able to <br /> handle a county the size of Hawaii. <br /> MRS. KOBAYASHI : Would that mean that the two <br /> at-large would be the only ones looking after the county, as a <br /> whole , and that the five running per district would only take <br /> care of their district? It could be argued that way. <br /> -17- <br />