My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0314.081 1996-1998
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
1996-1998
>
COM 0314.081 1996-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 5:32:42 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 7:50:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
1996-1998
Communication
0314
Point
081
Author
Richard D. Wurdeman, Corporation Counsel
Communications - Referred To
FC
Comments
Presented: FC - 9/1/98
Communications - File Code
USG
Document Relationships
AGE FC 09/01/1998 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\1996-1998\Finance Committee (FC)
COM 0314.000 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Curtis Tyler, Hawaii County Cocuc;.1 <br /> 9 June 1998 ~ <br /> Page 2 <br /> When this question has been raised in the past, this office has <br /> given the opinion that a satisfactory program review is <br /> essentially what the Council says it is, and that while the <br /> current practice of deeming the budget review process as a <br /> program review may meet the lett:or of the law, it does not <br /> satisfy the spirit. See Rule 24, Cvuncil Rules of Procedure. <br /> A program review or program evaluation, while it may be part of <br /> a management audit, is distinguishable from a management audit <br /> because, while the audit focuses on internal efficiency, and <br /> evaluation deals with effectiveness and relevance. In other <br /> words, does the program impact the problem, and is the problem <br /> really a problem. Oran, ~t~,MFSA'g ],Zictionarv, Reston Pub. Co., <br /> Reston, Va (1983). <br /> One author has described the methodology to be followed as <br /> consisting of seven steps: <br /> 1. Identificatipn of the fundamental governmental objectives, <br /> 2. Selection ?f evaluation criteria, <br /> 3. Development of alternative ways to attempt to meet the <br /> objectives, <br /> 4. Estimation of the full cost implications of each alternative, <br /> 5. Estimation of the effectiveness of each alternative, <br /> fi. Consideration of the major uncertainties involved, <br /> 7. Display of the costs and effectiveness of each alternative <br /> in a form understandable to ttie decision makers. <br /> Harry P. Hatry, "Overwiew of Modern Program Analysis <br /> Characteristics and Techniques," Urban Institute R rin <br /> (Wa~hinaton, D. C Urban Ins_t,itute, 1970), n. 39. <br /> in view of the fact that the Director of Finance estimates that <br /> there are probably close to 200 liivgrams currently in the county <br /> budget, and that simple arithmetic therefore leads to the <br /> conclusion that to review each prugram once every four years, a <br /> separate program review would need to be generated in almost a <br /> weekly basis; the ambitious intent of the Charter is irt.possible <br /> to meet with the present or reasonably expected resources of the <br /> County. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, it is recommended that Consideration i5 given to an <br /> ordinance of reasonable eapectati.uns, which would estak~lish <br /> procedures within present capar.ity to implement the Charter <br /> requirement. <br /> <br /> RDW:1882Lbre <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.