Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> l 6 <br /> <br /> Stephen IG Yamashiro <br /> - ' ' <br /> Mapa. R)JIatJ Wurdernau <br /> • ~ Ce.gora Nm~ Cw mef <br /> r <br /> f~iitt'~ h~ai r~ <br /> KLIIII2T~~1 U~ ~tlflYtlTi <br /> OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL <br /> t01 Aupuu7 Street, Sulte 325 • Hila, Hsai'i Pri i. ~-17d7 . 197ut) %t-8257. Fzz IROR) 9h1-&:2 <br /> 9 June 1998 <br /> --~--1&'~ <br /> - r,- r. <br /> County Council ~ <br /> To: cuRT25 TYLER <br /> Hawaii County Council <br /> FROM: RICHARD D, WUADEMAN~ <br /> Corporation Counsel <br /> SUBJECT: PROGRAM REVIEW <br /> In your memorandum Of April 23, 1998, you asked for an <br /> interpretation of Hawaii County Charter Section 3-16. That <br /> section requires that: <br /> At least once every four years, the Council shall critically <br /> review every program supported wholly or partially by County <br /> funds, and unless the Council shall favorably authorize its <br /> .continuation at current or modified levels, the program <br /> shall be terminated. The Council shall adopt proce3ures an4 <br /> details to implement this section, <br /> This section has been the source of some controversy over tLt:, <br /> years, in that the council has never formulated the pro~edure.s <br /> and details necessary to implement the section. This <br /> controversy has centered not around major programs such as suliti <br /> waste, but around an activity that may not qualify as a program, <br /> aerial marijuana eradication. <br /> A lawsuit, Rob'nette v. Arakaki et al, Civ. No. 94-34, sought to <br /> raise this issue in the Third Circuit Court, but was dismissed <br /> in 1994, after the County successfully argued that the charter <br /> provision was not self-executing, and that the manner in which <br /> it is executed is a political question, not to be distu7Ued by <br /> the Courts. <br /> eo.a, Nw 3 g ~ <br /> INe Ne. V S G <br /> t~ Presente7 <br /> Ital. Date. 1 ~ <br /> <br />