CHC 1979-06-05 SUBCOMMITTEE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. OMONAKA: The state one can be dangerous, too, because it can be that we may lose one house member, too. So, we need to have our own reapportionment provision. I 'm in favor of doing something in the charter for reapportionment. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Then, Stuart, to facilitate this, could you come up, with more or less a draft as to what the duties of the reapportionment commission would be. Using, I guess, the Honolulu and the other counties as, maybe, guidelines. The only thing I think we have to discuss, or take into consideration is, I think the Honolulu one says every ten years, or eight years. MR. ODA: Eight years , because it started in 1973. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If we have input testimony every eight years, or after every federal census. . .we' ll have to decide that or any variation thereof. What about term of years? Two years or four years? Or, four years staggered? Why did people say two years? MRS. KOBAYASHI : Because they didn ' t want to get stuck. And, also, because they would be more accountable. The State House of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives have them running for two years. Why did they say four years staggered? MR. OMONAKA: Well , the staggered, obviously, we need some continuity. If you have them staggered, at least you would have some holdover's_"in, office._ CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: That was the only distinction. . between two year district and four year at-large. Those that happen to make a distinction. MR. OMONAKA: There was some other argument for a four year term, it was that anybody that gets into office . . there is no way he can quickly assess the county operation in just two years. MR. SAKATA: The staggered term was, I guess, because,of the present council makeup and they had so `much dollars so they figure rather than have a turnover at one crack like this, it would be easier to have a longer office to run the thing than to have them all come into the office new at one time. CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Should we all be four years? Or do we try to make a distinction between districts .and. at-large?,_ Or all two years? The consensus seems to be that at least with the at-large people, I don ' t think there is any opposition to four years. They all kind of agree to four years. Is anybody particularly strong to change it to two years? The major argument that was brought up in favor of the two year term was accountability. And one of the major arguments in favor of four year terms was that 'we just didn ' t have enough time if we limit it to two years, to get the most out of a person. -13-