Laserfiche WebLink
MR. SAKATA: Well I know the fiasco we went <br /> through in the last county council and I think this is the <br /> reason why many of them have testified to the fact that they <br /> would like to have a staggered term so they would have some <br /> continuity as far as the council members are concerned. If <br /> you are going to have a real great change,__-over, like we did with <br /> these present councilmen all our problems that we noticed and <br /> we` heard about, I think we have to look into this from the <br /> standpoint of how we are going to keep continuity in the council <br /> so that we have some retention of people in the council. <br /> CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Do you want to add anything <br /> more, Akira? <br /> MR. OMONAKA: No, except that I have got to admit <br /> that in terms of staggering terms it is going to be a nightmare. <br /> CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Basilic), do you have anything <br /> you would like to say? <br /> MR. YAGONG: I would go with the four year term. <br /> CHAIRMAN ISHIDA: Anyway, my feeling is, I know <br /> wehave had a lot of testimony. .in fact, I think one of the <br /> issues that has been brought up is to economize as far as the <br /> county expenditure is concerned, and, therefore, I think this is <br /> :one o=f_ the reasons why I think people have been suggesting that <br /> maybe as far as council positions, there should be a reduction <br /> in positions from the 'present nine. I personally feel that nine <br /> is a good number. Instead of just having two at-large, somehow <br /> I just feel that that two at-large position is insufficient. <br /> Consequently, this is why I feel that we should, instead of <br /> changing the number of our council positions, I think we should <br /> maintain that number and make the at-large positions four. <br /> One of the reasons I feel this way is we are <br /> talking about district representation and we also have heard <br /> in testimony, arguments saying, well one argument against at-large <br /> representation is that well where the population center can <br /> control candidates. I can see philosophically, mathematically, <br /> maybe that may be possible, it may not happen. But we can take <br /> that into consideration and use a_residency requirement to even <br /> this representation as far as the at-large position is concerned. <br /> Like our present setup where we have all these six different <br /> districts, they all run at-large but they are residents from <br /> specific districts, I feel that maybe if it is at all possible <br /> that at the at-large positions we can set residence requirements <br /> --in other words, two from East Hawaii and two from West Hawaii. <br /> I take that position mainly because I feel , <br /> personally, they should be staggered terms. At least, if we <br /> have nine we' ll have five one year and four the other, and we <br /> can split the at-large, two and two. If we do set residence <br /> requirements then of course we can alternate the at-large <br /> positions on basis of the residency. We have some initial <br /> problems as far as the district representation is concerned of <br /> -4- <br />