Overview of the Document
Document title:
Minutes of the March 2012 Regular Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council, March 1, 2012
Date created:
March 1, 2012
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
Source of acquisition:
Obtained from the Sukagawa City Council website, printed on June 25, 2025
Type of document:
Minutes of a city council plenary session
Relevant period:
March 1, 2012
Format published:
PDF containing excerpts of the relevant portions from the original minutes
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document consists of the minutes of the plenary session of the March 2012 Regular Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council, held on March 1, 2012.
In the agenda for Meeting Schedule No. 1, Item 3 is listed as “Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 2: Resolution Recommending the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya.”
The number of attending council members was 27.
There was one absent council member, recorded as Council Member No. 7, Masashi Okura.
Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was recorded in the list of attending council members as Council Member No. 1.
At the beginning of the plenary session, however, the chair stated that the council member who had given notice of delayed attendance was Council Member No. 1, Toshio Tsumuraya.
Accordingly, this document confirms that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was treated as an attending council member, while at the opening of the meeting he was recorded as a council member who had given notice of delayed attendance.
Thereafter, as Item 3, Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 2, “Resolution Recommending the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya,” was placed on the agenda.
The proposer was asked to explain the reasons for the proposal, and Council Member Arata Mori, Council Member No. 14, took the podium.
Council Member Arata Mori stated that he would explain the reasons for the proposal of Resolution No. 2, which had just been placed on the agenda, and explained that the text of the resolution was as set forth in the attached document.
In the explanation of reasons, it was stated that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had already been given recommendations for resignation three times.
It was then stated that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had still failed to face sincerely the crime he had committed, and that he had not complied with the recommendations for resignation by forcing a self-serving reason that he would restore trust through council activities.
Council Member Arata Mori further stated, in substance, that what was required of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya above all else was not to engage in council activities such as general questioning, but to return to being a council member with common sense and to make the decision and take the action of voluntarily stepping down.
In addition, the explanation of reasons used the expression that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya’s act of submitting notice of a general question to the current council session, as if to justify his self-serving claims, was hypocrisy itself and could never be overlooked.
On that basis, it was stated that a fourth resolution recommending resignation was being proposed.
In the explanation of reasons, it was stated that, in principle, such resolutions should not be issued indiscriminately.
However, it was also explained that, as long as Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya continued to engage in such words and conduct, and in order to prevent the matter from being forgotten, this was the fullest possible response available to the council under the current law.
After the explanation of the reasons for the proposal, the chair announced that questions, referral to a committee, and debate would be omitted with respect to the resolution.
A vote was then taken on Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 2.
The vote was conducted by standing, and all attending members stood in favor.
Accordingly, this document confirms that the fourth recommendation for resignation was placed on the agenda as Item 3 of the plenary session after three previous recommendations for resignation, that it was voted on after the explanation of reasons by Council Member Arata Mori, with questions, referral to a committee, and debate omitted, and that it was adopted with the approval of all attending members.
In the scope of this document, no entry can be confirmed stating that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was requested to leave the chamber pursuant to Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act, as was the case with the second and third recommendations.
Therefore, with respect to the fourth recommendation for resignation, it should not be stated definitively that deliberation and voting took place after the person concerned had left the chamber. Rather, it should be organized on the premise that he was recorded in the list of attending council members, while at the opening of the meeting he was recorded as a council member who had given notice of delayed attendance.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that the fourth recommendation for resignation was adopted after three recommendations for resignation had already been adopted, and that it was yet another repeated recommendation for resignation.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted before the first hearing and before judgment, after the person concerned had left the chamber.
The third recommendation for resignation was adopted after the judgment had become final and binding. In that process, the statement that recommendations for resignation would be issued as many times as necessary was made, and the text of the resolution itself included the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
By contrast, this document shows that, after that, the fourth recommendation for resignation was actually submitted to the plenary session and voted on.
Accordingly, this document shows that the repeated stance of demanding resignation expressed in the third recommendation for resignation did not remain merely a statement or an abstract expression of intent, but was actually implemented as the fourth recommendation for resignation.
This document also shows that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was recorded in the list of attending council members, while at the opening of the meeting he was recorded as a council member who had given notice of delayed attendance.
This situation differs from the first recommendation, where the person concerned was absent, and from the second and third recommendations, where he left the chamber.
Therefore, with respect to the fourth recommendation, it is necessary to examine the explanation of reasons, the omission of deliberative procedures, and the voting situation on the premise that the person concerned was treated as an attending council member while also being recorded as having given notice of delayed attendance at the opening of the meeting.
In this document, Council Member Arata Mori stated that, although recommendations for resignation had already been issued three times, Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had not complied with them.
He then evaluated Toshio Tsumuraya’s stated intention to restore trust through council activities as a self-serving reason, and stated in substance that what was required of him was not to engage in council activities such as general questioning, but to make the decision and take the action of voluntarily stepping down.
This point shows that the council evaluated the person concerned’s council activities themselves not as a means of restoring trust, but negatively, as an attitude of refusing to comply with the recommendations for resignation.
Even more important is that, in the explanation of reasons, the fact that the person concerned had submitted notice of a general question was described as an act as if to justify his self-serving claims, and was characterized as hypocrisy itself.
This expression goes beyond an evaluation of the person concerned’s political position or council activities and enters into a strong personal evaluation of the person himself.
Accordingly, this document shows that the fourth recommendation for resignation was not merely an expression of intent demanding resignation, but included content extending to the person concerned’s council activities, notice of a general question, and personal evaluation.
This document also states that, in principle, such resolutions should not be issued indiscriminately.
Nevertheless, it states that, as long as Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya continued such words and conduct, and in order to prevent the matter from being forgotten, the fourth recommendation for resignation was being proposed as the fullest possible response available to the council under the current law.
This point shows that the council itself recognized that repeated recommendations for resignation required caution, yet nevertheless proceeded with the fourth recommendation for resignation.
Thereafter, questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted, and the resolution was adopted with the approval of all attending members.
Accordingly, this document shows that, after three previous recommendations for resignation, the council recognized that such resolutions should not be issued indiscriminately, yet adopted the fourth recommendation for resignation with unanimous approval after negatively evaluating the person concerned’s council activities and notice of a general question, and after using language that entered into personal evaluation.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. How can a fourth recommendation for resignation be explained after three previous recommendations?
This document shows that the fourth recommendation for resignation was proposed on the premise that recommendations for resignation had already been issued three times.
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as an expression of intent without legal binding force.
However, when a public authority such as a city council repeatedly adopts recommendations for resignation four times within a short period against the same person, does it not go beyond a mere expression of intent and function as continuing political and social pressure against the person concerned?
2. Did the stance expressed in the third recommendation, that recommendations would continue to be issued as many times as necessary, actually lead to the fourth recommendation?
In the third recommendation for resignation, it was stated in substance that the council would continue to seek the person’s resignation and would continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary.
The text of the resolution itself also included the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This document shows that, after that, a fourth recommendation for resignation was actually proposed and voted on at the plenary session.
Does this not show that the repeated stance of demanding resignation expressed in the third recommendation was not merely a statement, but was actually implemented in the plenary session?
3. How should it be evaluated that the fourth recommendation was adopted despite the recognition that such resolutions should not be issued indiscriminately?
In this document, the explanation of reasons states that, in principle, such resolutions should not be issued indiscriminately.
Nevertheless, a fourth resolution recommending resignation was proposed and voted on.
This shows that the fourth recommendation for resignation was, even in light of the council’s own recognition, a matter requiring careful examination.
How, then, can the necessity, appropriateness, and procedural safeguards for adopting a fourth recommendation for resignation be justified?
4. Was it appropriate to negatively evaluate the person concerned’s council activities and notice of a general question?
In this document, Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya’s stated intention to restore trust through council activities was evaluated as a self-serving reason.
The fact that he had submitted notice of a general question to the current council session was also described as an act as if to justify his self-serving claims, and was characterized as hypocrisy itself.
However, Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was still a city council member at that time.
As long as he remained a council member, council activities and general questioning were ordinarily acts connected to his authority and duties as a council member.
How, then, can the council’s negative evaluation of his council activities and notice of a general question in the explanation of reasons for a recommendation for resignation be explained in relation to the performance of duties as a council member, political status, and expressive activities?
5. How should the expression “hypocrisy itself” be evaluated in relation to Article 132 of the Local Autonomy Act?
In this document, the fact that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had submitted notice of a general question was described as hypocrisy itself.
Article 132 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that, in a meeting or committee of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity, members must not use insulting words or make statements concerning another person’s private life.
Does the expression “hypocrisy itself” remain within the scope of political criticism of the person concerned’s council activities or notice of a general question?
Or does it enter into a personal evaluation of the person concerned and raise an issue in relation to the prohibition of insulting words, or the purpose of Article 132 of the Local Autonomy Act?
How can the use of such an expression as part of the explanation of reasons in a plenary session of a public authority be explained in relation to the honor, personal interests, and dignity of the council?
6. Was it appropriate to omit questions, referral to a committee, and debate?
This document shows that, after the explanation of the reasons for the proposal, questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted.
Even if a recommendation for resignation formally has no legal binding force, it may seriously affect the political status, honor, social reputation, and council activities of the person concerned.
Was it appropriate, from the perspectives of careful deliberation by the council and due process, to omit questions, referral to a committee, and debate even for the fourth recommendation for resignation?
7. What is the meaning of adoption by all attending council members?
This document records that all attending members stood in favor in the vote.
This means that the fourth recommendation for resignation was not merely the statement of an individual council member or the judgment of some factions, but was expressed as the will of the Sukagawa City Council at that time.
How should the impact of such a unanimous resolution on the honor, social reputation, political status, and subsequent council activities of the person concerned be evaluated?
8. Was it appropriate to repeat recommendations for resignation without using expulsion or other statutory procedures?
Local councils have statutory procedures concerning discipline and expulsion in certain cases.
However, what is addressed in this document is not discipline or expulsion, but a recommendation for resignation.
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as an expression of intent without legal binding force.
Nevertheless, repeated recommendations for resignation adopted four times and the council’s continued demand for resignation may become serious political and social pressure against the person concerned.
Does repeating recommendations for resignation without using statutory disciplinary or expulsion procedures raise an issue of evasion of statutory procedures or substantive sanction?
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns respect for the individual and personal interests. Even after the judgment had become final and binding, the issue is the impact that repeated recommendations for resignation and personal evaluations made in a plenary session had on the honor, social reputation, personal interests, and political status of the person concerned.
Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that the people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them. The issue is the relationship between the mandate given by residents through election and the fact that the council repeatedly adopted recommendations for resignation four times and continued to demand resignation from an elected council member.
Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns freedom of expression and political activities. The issue is how the negative evaluation, in the explanation of reasons for the recommendation for resignation, of the person concerned’s act of submitting notice of a general question and engaging in council activities should be evaluated in relation to expressive and political activities as a council member.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the guarantee of due process. Even if a recommendation for resignation formally has no legal binding force, the issue is what procedural safeguards were required when it could seriously affect the political status, honor, and council activities of the person concerned.
Article 93, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the fact that members of local public entity assemblies are elected by direct popular vote of the residents. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation by a council majority or the entire council against a directly elected council member, together with the negative evaluation of council activities and notice of a general question, should be evaluated in relation to representative democracy in local self-government.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the duty of city council members and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether the council’s repeated recommendations for resignation and its continued demand that the person concerned resign were consistent with that duty.
Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the rule that a member of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity may not participate in proceedings concerning a matter relating personally to himself or certain relatives. The procedural meaning of deliberating and voting on a recommendation for resignation concerning the person concerned must be examined.
Article 132 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision states that, in a meeting or committee of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity, members must not use insulting words or make statements concerning another person’s private life. In this document, the explanation of reasons describes Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya’s submission of notice of a general question as hypocrisy itself. It is necessary to examine whether this expression remains within the scope of criticism of council activities or notice of a general question, or whether it enters into personal evaluation as insulting language in relation to the purpose of Article 132 of the Local Autonomy Act.
Article 134 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the authority of an assembly of an ordinary local public entity to discipline its members pursuant to law and meeting rules. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation should be positioned in relation to the disciplinary system.
Article 135 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision provides for the types of disciplinary measures in an assembly, including admonition in a public session, apology, suspension from attendance for a certain period, and expulsion. The issue is whether repeating recommendations for resignation without using statutory disciplinary procedures constitutes a substantive sanction or evasion of statutory procedures.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns freedom of expression. The issue is how the negative evaluation, in the explanation of reasons for the recommendation for resignation, of the person concerned’s act of submitting notice of a general question and engaging in council activities should be evaluated in relation to freedom of expression and political speech.
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right of citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to be elected, and to have access to public service without unreasonable restrictions. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation by a public authority, placing serious pressure on the political status and council activities of an elected council member, should be evaluated in relation to the right of political participation.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. It is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan has ratified.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether it is permissible to avoid examining obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the ground that the act was done by a local council, that it was an internal matter of the council, or that no specific procedure is provided under the domestic legal system.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the relationship among these provisions are examined in the page “Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality.”
Relationship to This Case
This document shows how the fourth recommendation for resignation of March 1, 2012 was proposed and voted on at the plenary session.
In this case, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted on October 26, 2011, the second recommendation for resignation was adopted on December 1, 2011, and the third recommendation for resignation was adopted on February 9, 2012.
This document shows that, following those three recommendations for resignation, the fourth recommendation for resignation was proposed and voted on at the plenary session.
Particularly important is that, after the third recommendation for resignation had expressed the stance that the council would continue to seek resignation and would issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary, and after the text of that resolution had stated, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary,” the fourth recommendation for resignation was actually adopted.
This shows that the repeated stance of demanding resignation expressed in the third recommendation did not remain merely a statement or an abstract expression of intent, but was concretely implemented as the fourth recommendation for resignation at the next plenary session.
This document must also be read together with the minutes of the Council Steering Committee meeting held on February 27, 2012.
In the minutes of the Council Steering Committee meeting of February 27, it was explained, with respect to the fourth recommendation for resignation, that such resolutions should not be issued indiscriminately in principle, but that this was the fullest possible response available to the council.
In other words, the council recognized that caution was required regarding the repetition of recommendations for resignation, yet nevertheless proceeded toward the fourth recommendation for resignation.
This document records Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya in the list of attending council members, while also stating that at the opening of the meeting he was a council member who had given notice of delayed attendance.
This differs from the first recommendation, where the person concerned was absent, and from the second and third recommendations, where the person concerned left the chamber. Caution is therefore required when evaluating the attendance situation of the person concerned in relation to the fourth recommendation.
Within the scope of this document, no entry can be confirmed stating that the person concerned was requested to leave the chamber pursuant to Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act, as was the case with the second and third recommendations.
Accordingly, with respect to the fourth recommendation, it should not be stated definitively that deliberation and voting took place after the person concerned had left the chamber. Rather, the explanation of reasons, omission of deliberative procedures, and voting situation should be organized on the premise that the person concerned was recorded in the list of attending council members, while at the opening of the meeting he was recorded as a council member who had given notice of delayed attendance.
In this document, Council Member Arata Mori evaluated Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya as failing to face sincerely the crime he had committed and as refusing to comply with the recommendations for resignation by forcing a reason that he would restore trust through council activities.
It was also stated, in substance, that what was required of him was not to engage in council activities such as general questioning, but to make the decision and take the action of voluntarily stepping down.
In addition, the fact that he had submitted notice of a general question was described as an act as if to justify his self-serving claims, and was characterized as hypocrisy itself.
This shows that the council evaluated the person concerned’s council activities and notice of a general question negatively, not as the performance of duties as a council member, but as an improper attitude of refusing to comply with the recommendations for resignation.
As long as a person remains a council member, submitting notice of a general question and engaging in council activities are ordinarily acts connected to the authority and duties of a council member.
Nevertheless, the council negatively evaluated the person concerned’s council activities and notice of a general question in the explanation of reasons for the recommendation for resignation, and further described them as hypocrisy itself. This requires examination in relation to the person concerned’s political status, council activities, expressive activities, honor, and personal interests.
It is also necessary to examine whether the expression “hypocrisy itself” remains within the scope of political evaluation, or whether it enters into personal evaluation and raises an issue in relation to the prohibition of insulting words under Article 132 of the Local Autonomy Act or the purpose of that provision.
Accordingly, this document is a central document for confirming the explanation of reasons for the fourth recommendation for resignation, the omission of deliberative procedures, the voting situation, the fact that the person concerned had given notice of delayed attendance, the negative evaluation of council activities and the notice of a general question, the personal evaluation expressed by the phrase “hypocrisy itself,” and the repetition of recommendations for resignation.
This case requires examination of how such a plenary-session resolution can be explained in relation to personal rights, honor, political status, council activities, the right to ask general questions, expressive activities, statutory disciplinary procedures, expulsion procedures, substantive sanction, and the cumulative pressure to resign.
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
Related normative articles:
Related timeline entries:
October 18, 2011:
The alleged incident was said to have occurred.
October 19, 2011:
Toshio Tsumuraya voluntarily appeared at the police station and was then arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. This was not an arrest in flagrante delicto. Detention began.
October 24, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the First Resolution Recommending Resignation
October 26, 2011,
First Resolution Recommending Resignation
November 9, 2011:
He was indicted and was later released on bail.
November 28, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
December 1, 2011,
Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
January 16, 2012,
Conviction
January 31, 2012,
Conviction became final and binding
February 7, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 9, 2012,
Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 27, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation
March 1, 2012,
Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation