HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMM. 079 'f
PRESENTATION TO CHARTER COMMISSION - July 11,1979
•
We don't believe the Commission really appreciated the
extreme effect the decision would have on West HAwaii. •
Frankly, it would be a political disaster for the area,
which today pays 48% of the taxes of this .County and• next
. year will probably pay %0% or more. It
Now why would this be a political disaster for West Hawaii?
Because, in effect it gives the region only 1 Council Member, L4' lk
•:�
I call the proposal the "New Political Mathematics " because
5 plus 2 = 1. Five District members plus two at large equals
one for West Hawaii. Now how do I arrive at that?
First, let's face one aspect as a fact - at large members
basically come from Hilo, so this means that Representative
District 2 (which is all in South Hilo) gets 2 directly elected
•
Council members plus two at large for a total of four. Now ,if
the County were divided evenly to elect a seven member.
•
' Council, there should be one member for each 11,157 population-
give
or each 5680 voters. I mme both measures because. your Counsel,
Mr. Oda,has repeatedly mate advised. as to the impossibility
of an exactly equal balance - that you have to consider many
aspects in setting up election districts. so I show you the
twin aspects because the balance between them gives a ' probably
•
truer picture than either alone.
•
•
-1 •
-
•,1
COMMISSION PROPOSAL - 5 plus 2
Council Population/ • % - • Voters/ %
District _ Members Member Avaerage . Member Average • .
1) Kau-Puna- 1 17500 +56% 8276 .+45%
S.Hilo
. . '2) S.Hilo f . 4 7500 • . . -32% • 3812 .. : -33% •
3) S.Hilo,N.Hilo, 1 . . 14700 +34% 7072. +25%
Hamakua
N.Kohala .
4) S.Kohala 1 15600 +42% 9162 +61%
• N.Kona
S.Kona
Desired average 11157 5680
WEST HAWAIII PROPOSAL - 9 direct election from equal districts
A) N.Kohala • 1 8734 +1% 4236 -4%
S.Kohala(less
Kawaihae
part Hamakua .
B) Kawa,ihae 1 8150 , -6% 4889 +10%
N.Kona
0) S.Kona 1 8600 -1% 4440. . • 0
Kau •
D) Puna 1 9000 ' +4% . ' ` 4640 +5% •
S.Hilo
E.,F,G,H) . 4 8700 _ 0 • 4350 -2%
• S.Hilo
I) .S.H to ' 1 . 8816 8816 . • +2% 4183 -5% •
N.Hilo . .
Hamakua '
.Desired average 8678 4417
Note :this same type could be easily done for 7 man Council
• but would involve more splitting .of traditional districts
• -2—
a
A
WEST HAWAII PROPOSAL FOR INTERIM - 9 from Representative Districts
District Council Ro?pailation/ % Voters/ .r
Members Member Average Member Average
1) Kau-Puna- 2 8750 ' +1% . . 4138 -6%
S.Hilo
2) S,Hilo 3 10000 +16% 5083 +15%
'3) S.Hilo;N.Hilo 2 . 7350 • . —15% 3536 • —20%
Hamakua
N.Kohala
4) S.Kohala 2 7800 . -10% 4581 +4%
N.Kona •
S.Kona:
Desired average 8644 4418
RANGE OF PROPOSALS SUMMARY •
Proposal Based on Based on
Population Voters
om isi�n
plus +56% t® -32% +61% t® -33%
•
West Hawaii •
Permanent +44 to -6% +10%' to —5%
9 direct
West Hawaii
Interim +16 to —15% +15% to —20%
9 direct
It is apparent that the most fair,equitable method is the direct
election from equal districts (the West Hawaii permanent
proposal) with the West Hawaiii Interim Proposal much
more fair than the Commission 5 plus 2 proposal.
-3-
4
•
•
Looking- at the factual analysis of the various .proposals,
the political consequences to West Hawaii, and considering
the certain devisivness aftemisameor that will accompany the
adoption of the Commissions present proposal, we strongly
request a reconsideration and the subsequent adoption - -
of a plan fair and equitable to all sections of the Island. In
so doing,we believe the length of time necessary for a proper
solution should not be a limiting factor-. As we understand' -
it, there is nothing final -about November 3rd as the date •
• for the Special Election. It is just a timetable goal of
this Commission, whereas the true goal of this Commission must
be an improved Charter of the people and for the people of
all Hawaii County.
•
We appreciate this opportunity to present our views to you .
as previously ,indicated
• and/remain available to you for clarification or assistance.
-4- •