Laserfiche WebLink
MR. NAGASAKO: If I am remembering the intent <br /> of the third Charter Commission, the only reason that the four- <br /> year term, in other words , the council ' s terms, or supervisor's <br /> terms were lengthened is because election at-large was called <br /> for. Otherwise, in terms of practice, I don ' t believe there is <br /> any justification for a district representative or a council <br /> representative to serve for longer than two-year terms. Even <br /> our congressmen have to serve for simply two-year terms. So, <br /> I would say a two-year term for a council member is long <br /> enough. But, the council members to be elected at-large, <br /> certainly, deserve a longer term and that is why we said let ' s <br /> have them serve for four-year terms. <br /> MR. TRULSON: Mr. Nagasako. Getting back to <br /> Section 15-1 . I have a copy of your paper here and your <br /> question was, should public hearings be mandatory before final <br /> adoption of the ordinance, although the charter presently <br /> provides that it should be up to the electorate to vote on <br /> proposed amendments or revisions. Are you also suggesting, <br /> perhaps, public hearings prior to the election? <br /> MR. NAGASAKO: No. I am suggesting a public <br /> hearing, or public hearings, before the county council finally <br /> adopts the proposed revisions or amendments. But, raising the <br /> question whether that would be feasible or desirable. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Mr. Nagasako. On this four-year <br /> term for the at-large candidate, council member, I am trying <br /> to reconcile in my mind your basis for giving them that <br /> additional term. I believe one of the things you did state <br /> was continuity. The continuity, in that sense, you are giving <br /> to the council , is to be established by two individuals. It <br /> seems to me that if we do that do we not give these two <br /> individuals unreasonable advantage over the seven other newly <br /> elected council members? <br /> MR. NAGASAKO: Yes, Mr. Ishida, I would expect <br /> that the two hold over council members serving their second <br /> two-year term, let ' s say, may be expected to have some advantage <br /> in terms of organizing the new council. That is correct. But <br /> I feel that may be an advantage for the organization and the <br /> subsequent functioning of the county council . But the four-year <br /> term, basically, is for the reason they are required to run <br /> at-large rather than within one district. In this proposal , <br /> of course, it is a state representative district. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: You do not feel that all council <br /> members should "serve -an equal length __of terms? In other w- <br /> ords, <br /> all two-years or all four-years? <br /> MR. NAGASAKO: Well , if the Charter Review <br /> Commission were to recommend to the electorate all nine council <br /> members to be elected at-large, I would definitely say, yes, <br /> they should all serve the four-year term as they are doing now. <br /> But if it is simply council district, or state representative <br /> district or congressional district, I . . . <br /> MR. ISHIDA: May I ask you why you feel if <br /> they represent or come from a specific district, why you feel <br /> they should be restricted to a two-year term? <br /> -7- <br />