My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-06-19 SUBCOMMITTEE
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
Subcommittee
>
CHC 1979-06-19 SUBCOMMITTEE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2018 10:12:10 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 10:10:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
6/19/1979
Type
MIN
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the number of the council members will be whether we should <br /> continue retaining the number nine, or should we alter that <br /> number and increase it or decrease it. <br /> I think I am correct also in stating that if we <br /> are looking into districting right now on the basis of what <br /> is presently before us we are somewhat restricted to the five <br /> positions as far as districting is concerned. Following again <br /> the present State Representative District apportionment, <br /> Districts 10 , and 4 would have one and District 2 would have <br /> two. Would that be correct in what I stated? <br /> MR. ODA: Would you repeat that? <br /> CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: If we are to consider <br /> districting we are somewhat limited as far as numbers are <br /> concerned since we do have. .we are kind of restricted to the <br /> present State Representative Districts. In other words , if we <br /> are talking about positions as far as districting is concerned <br /> we are somewhat_Iimited to one position for Districts 1 , 3, and <br /> 4, and two positions for District 2, as is presently the case <br /> in the State Representative apportionment. <br /> MR. ODA: As a minimum. <br /> CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: As a minimum, right. I guess <br /> that is where we are right now. There has been a proposal by <br /> Mr. Omonaka already that, I don ' t know whether it was in the <br /> form of a motion yet but the general proposal during our <br /> discussion was that we should have five district positions , <br /> two at-large. I think that is where we left it at that time. <br /> Just for continuity at this time maybe, Akira, <br /> can you tell us why, five and two? As far as you are concerned, <br /> why it should be sufficient. <br /> MR. OMONAKA: Well, as' we went around throughout <br /> the island taking testimony, there was a strong sentiment for <br /> at least some form of a strict district representation at the <br /> county council level. So if we use the current five, actually, <br /> four house districts, where the second district has two <br /> representatives, if we can follow that with five councilmen <br /> elected by district, that district, then we can get two council- <br /> men running at-large. I strongly believe that 7 councilmen is <br /> enough in terms of running our county council. We've had <br /> testimony to that effect by members of the county council and <br /> others. So I feel that 7 councilmen is enough to run this <br /> county. <br /> CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Does anyone else have any other <br /> feelings? <br /> MR. SAKATA: Akira, this kind of puzzles me. You <br /> talk about five and two- at-large. Five from the districts, <br /> right? When we come to the area of terms and length of service <br /> we are strictly going to go 4 years? <br /> -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.