Overview of the Document
Document title:
February 27, 2012 Council Steering Committee Minutes
Date created:
February 27, 2012
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
Source of acquisition:
Obtained through a request for disclosure of administrative documents submitted to the Sukagawa City Council
Type of document:
Council Steering Committee minutes
Relevant period:
February 27, 2012
Format published:
PDF excerpting the relevant portions from the original text
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document consists of the minutes of the Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee meeting held on February 27, 2012.
The meeting opened at 1:30 p.m. and closed at 1:59 p.m.
The meeting was held in the Sukagawa City Council committee room.
The committee members present were Hisao Yaginuma, Yasuyoshi Sekine, Masaaki Otera, Kunihei Shiota, Yoshihiko Hirose, Tadao Kikuchi, and Kenji Hashimoto.
Chairperson Tadao Suzuki and Vice-Chairperson Mori attended as non-committee members.
The absent committee member was Kazunori Kato.
As explanatory officials, the mayor, the Director of the Administrative Management Department, and others attended.
The council secretariat staff members present were Mamoru Ichikawa, Secretariat Director; Motohiro Sato, Assistant Director and Proceedings Section Chief; and Sachie Yokokawa, Clerk.
This document records discussions concerning the management of the session and term for the March 2012 Regular Meeting.
In relation to this case, what is important is that the fourth proposed recommendation for resignation directed at Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was discussed in advance by the Council Steering Committee.
The chairperson referred to the fact that recommendations for resignation directed at Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had already been adopted three times: at the September 2011 Regular Meeting, the December 2011 Regular Meeting, and the February 2012 Extraordinary Meeting.
The chairperson then stated, in substance, that it was extremely regrettable that Council Member Tsumuraya, without taking seriously the resolutions previously adopted by the council, had indicated that he would continue to ignore them.
The chairperson also stated, in substance, that there had been severe criticism from citizens concerning this issue, distrust toward the council, and that the matter had been taken up in information magazines and the like, causing the entire City of Sukagawa to be exposed to criticism and creating an extremely concerning situation.
The chairperson further stated that he had urged Council Member Tsumuraya to take the previous recommendations for resignation seriously and reconsider, but that Council Member Tsumuraya had indicated that he still had no intention of resigning as a council member.
On that basis, the chairperson explained that, although it would be the fourth time, the proposed recommendation for resignation was being submitted based on discussions at the caucus representatives’ meeting, where it had been agreed that another recommendation for resignation should be submitted.
The chairperson also stated, in substance, that although such resolutions should not normally be issued repeatedly, he asked for understanding that this was the utmost response available to the council.
In the explanation of the management of the March 2012 Regular Meeting, it was also explained that the proposed recommendation for resignation directed at Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was scheduled to be handled at the plenary session.
In the explanation of the session management, it was stated, in substance, that at the beginning of the March Regular Meeting plenary session, in order to recommend that Council Member Tsumuraya resign as a council member, the fourth proposed recommendation for resignation would be submitted in accordance with the separately presented draft.
It can also be confirmed that the proposal was scheduled to be handled after Council Member Tsumuraya was required to leave the chamber, and that the procedure would consist of an explanation of the reasons for the proposal, omission of questions, referral to a committee, and debate, followed by a vote.
Accordingly, this document confirms that the fourth recommendation for resignation was not something suddenly handled at the plenary session. Rather, at the Council Steering Committee meeting on February 27, 2012, the procedure had already been organized in advance: submission based on discussions at the caucus representatives’ meeting, requiring the person concerned to leave the chamber, explanation of the reasons for the proposal, omission of questions, referral to a committee, and debate, and then a vote.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that the fourth recommendation for resignation was organized in advance by the Council Steering Committee as a recommendation to be repeated yet again after three previous recommendations 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 became final.
By contrast, the fourth recommendation for resignation was discussed as a proposal scheduled to be submitted at the March Regular Meeting after three recommendations for resignation had already been adopted.
In this document, the chairperson stated, on the premise that recommendations for resignation had already been adopted three times, that it was extremely regrettable that Council Member Tsumuraya, without taking those resolutions seriously, had indicated that he would continue to ignore them.
The chairperson also referred to severe criticism from citizens, distrust toward the council, the matter being taken up in information magazines and the like, and concern that the entire City of Sukagawa was being exposed to criticism.
This indicates that the fourth recommendation for resignation was being considered not only on the basis of the criminal judgment, but also against the background of Council Member Tsumuraya’s failure to respond to the previous recommendations for resignation, public sentiment, distrust toward the council, and social reputation formed through information magazines and the like.
It is also important that, in this document as well, the Sukagawa City Council itself recognized that recommendations for resignation should not be issued repeatedly.
This document explains that, although this would be the fourth recommendation for resignation and although such resolutions should not normally be issued repeatedly, it was the utmost response available to the council.
In other words, the fourth recommendation for resignation was organized in the direction of being submitted even though the council recognized that repeated recommendations for resignation should be approached with caution.
This statement shows that the fourth recommendation for resignation was not merely an ordinary expression of intent by the council, but a resolution that the council intended to adopt despite its own recognition of the problem of repetition.
The fourth recommendation for resignation was also scheduled at the March Regular Meeting shortly after the third recommendation for resignation.
In the third recommendation for resignation, Vice-Chairperson Mori stated, in substance, that the council would continue to seek resignation and would continue issuing recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary. The text of the proposed resolution also stated, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This document shows that, after the third recommendation for resignation, the council was in fact organizing the management of the session toward a fourth recommendation for resignation.
Accordingly, this document shows that the stance of repeatedly demanding resignation, expressed at the time of the third recommendation for resignation, did not remain merely a statement, but was actually connected to the fourth recommendation for resignation.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. How can scheduling a fourth recommendation for resignation after three previous recommendations be explained?
This document shows that, on the premise that recommendations for resignation had already been adopted three times, the council was moving in the direction of submitting a fourth recommendation for resignation.
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as an expression of intent that has no legal binding force.
However, when a city council, as a public authority, repeatedly adopts recommendations for resignation against the same person four times within a short period, does this remain merely an expression of intent, or does it function as continuous political and social pressure against the person concerned?
2. How should it be evaluated that the council scheduled a fourth recommendation while recognizing that such resolutions should not be issued repeatedly?
This document shows that the council itself recognized that recommendations for resignation should not be issued repeatedly.
Nevertheless, the council organized the management of the session in the direction of submitting a fourth recommendation for resignation.
This indicates that the fourth recommendation for resignation was of a nature that required careful examination even in light of the council’s own recognition.
Despite this, what necessity, proportionality, and procedural safeguards justified scheduling a fourth recommendation for resignation?
3. Did the stance expressed in the third recommendation, that recommendations for resignation would continue to be issued as many times as necessary, actually lead to the fourth recommendation?
In the third recommendation for resignation, a position was expressed to the effect that the council would continue to seek resignation and would continue issuing recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary.
The text of the proposed resolution also stated, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This document shows that, after that, the management of the session was actually organized in the direction of submitting a fourth recommendation for resignation at the March Regular Meeting.
Does this show that the stance of repeatedly demanding resignation expressed at the third recommendation was not merely a statement, but was concretely implemented in actual council management?
4. To what extent is it permissible to continue demanding resignation on the basis of distrust toward the council or public sentiment?
This document refers to severe criticism from citizens, distrust toward the council, the matter being taken up in information magazines and the like, and concern that the entire City of Sukagawa was being exposed to criticism.
However, the existence of distrust toward the council or public sentiment is not necessarily the same as a justification for continuing to demand resignation from the person concerned.
To what extent may a city council, as a public authority, repeatedly adopt recommendations for resignation against a council member on the basis of public sentiment or social criticism, in relation to the person’s personal interests, honor, political status, and council activities?
5. Was it appropriate to repeat recommendations for resignation without using expulsion or other statutory procedures?
Local assemblies have statutory procedures concerning discipline and expulsion in certain circumstances.
However, what is dealt with 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 that has no legal binding force.
However, adopting recommendations for resignation four times and continuously demanding resignation as a council can constitute serious political and social pressure on the person concerned.
Does repeating recommendations for resignation without using statutory disciplinary or expulsion procedures raise an issue of evading statutory procedures or functioning as a substantial sanction?
6. Was it appropriate to schedule the same procedure for the fourth recommendation, requiring the person concerned to leave the chamber and omitting questions, committee referral, and debate?
This document shows that, for the fourth proposed recommendation for resignation as well, the scheduled procedure was that the person concerned would leave the chamber, the reasons for the proposal would be explained, questions, referral to a committee, and debate would be omitted, and then a vote would be taken.
In the previous recommendations for resignation as well, the person concerned was absent or had left the chamber, and questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted.
Was it appropriate, even for the fourth recommendation for resignation, to schedule the same procedure, from the perspective of careful deliberation by the council and due process?
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 became final, the effect of repeated recommendations for resignation on the person’s honor, social reputation, personal interests, and political status remains an issue.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the guarantee of due process. Even if recommendations for resignation formally have no legal binding force, if they can have serious effects on the person’s political status, honor, and council activities, the issue is what procedural safeguards were required.
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 repetition of recommendations for resignation and its continued demand that the person resign were consistent with the duty to respect and uphold the Constitution.
Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision provides that a member of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity may not participate in proceedings concerning a matter relating to the personal affairs of the member or certain relatives. The procedural meaning of requiring the person concerned to leave the chamber before deliberating and voting on a recommendation for resignation directed at him becomes an issue.
Article 134 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the power of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity to discipline its members under law and the rules of the assembly. The issue is how the repetition of recommendations for resignation should be positioned in relation to the disciplinary system.
Article 135 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision sets out the types of disciplinary measures in an assembly: reprimand in an open session, apology, suspension of attendance for a certain period, and expulsion. The issue is whether repeatedly adopting recommendations for resignation without using statutory disciplinary procedures constitutes a substantial sanction or evasion of statutory procedures.
International Human Rights Treaties: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right of citizens to take part in public affairs, to be elected, and to have access to public service without unreasonable restrictions. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation by the council, a public authority, against a person elected as a council member, and the resulting serious pressure on political status and council activities, 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 the relationship with obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be left unexamined on the ground that the acts were those of a local council, that the matter was internal to the council, or that no specific procedure is provided under the domestic 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, scheduled for the March 2012 Regular Meeting, was organized by the Council Steering Committee before being handled at the plenary session.
In this case, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted on October 26, 2011, the second recommendation for resignation on December 1, 2011, and the third recommendation for resignation on February 9, 2012.
This document shows that, following these three recommendations for resignation, the Council Steering Committee had organized the management of the session in the direction of submitting a fourth recommendation for resignation at the March Regular Meeting.
What is particularly important is that, after the third recommendation for resignation had expressed the position that the council would continue to seek resignation and would continue issuing recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary, and after the text of the proposed resolution had stated, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary,” the council was in fact moving forward with the management of the session toward a fourth recommendation for resignation.
This point shows that the stance of repeatedly demanding resignation expressed at the third recommendation did not remain merely a statement or abstract expression of intent, but was being concretely implemented as preparation for a fourth recommendation for resignation at the next plenary session.
This document also explains, with respect to the fourth recommendation for resignation, that although such resolutions should not normally be issued repeatedly, this was the utmost response available to the council.
In other words, the council recognized that repeated recommendations for resignation should be approached with caution, yet nevertheless proceeded with the procedure toward a fourth recommendation for resignation.
This point is important in examining the possibility that the fourth recommendation for resignation did not remain merely a formal expression of intent, but functioned as cumulative pressure to resign against the person concerned.
Furthermore, this document confirms that, at the beginning of the March Regular Meeting, the fourth proposed recommendation for resignation was scheduled to be handled, that the person concerned would be required to leave the chamber, and that the procedure would consist of an explanation of the reasons for the proposal, omission of questions, referral to a committee, and debate, followed by a vote.
Accordingly, this document shows that the fourth recommendation for resignation was not something to be handled incidentally at the plenary session. Rather, the Council Steering Committee had already organized in advance the procedure by which the matter would be placed before the plenary session after requiring the person concerned to leave the chamber, explaining the reasons for the proposal, omitting questions, referral to a committee, and debate, and then taking a vote.
In this case, it is necessary to examine how this kind of council management can be explained in relation to personal rights, honor, political status, rights as a council member, statutory disciplinary procedures, expulsion procedures, substantial sanctions, and the accumulation of 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