Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Stephen K Yammhi,v RiJ1acJ Wurclernau <br /> Mole' : ~ , epenri.m Coumd <br /> <br /> <br /> GunfV of PttGrttii <br /> <br /> OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL <br /> 101 Aupual Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Ha"i'i 96,7:0.4;63 . 19149) %1.8357 . Fvz WA) 961-86:2 <br /> <br /> 9 June 1998 ,or 411r, <br /> <br /> Data__-- <br /> County Coundi ; ' <br /> <br /> TO: CURTIS TYLER <br /> Hawaii County Council/ <br /> FROM: RICHARD D. WURDEMAN y <br /> Corporation Counsel <br /> <br /> SUBJECT: PROGRAM REVIEW <br /> <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 procelures anu <br /> details to implement this section. <br /> This section has been the source of some controversy over Llu+ <br /> years, in that the council has never Formulated the pro~:eduLt:.s <br /> and details necessary to implement the section. This <br /> controversy has centered not around major programs such as solid <br /> waste, but around an activity that may not qualify as a program, <br /> aerial marijuana eradication. <br /> A lawsuit, Robinette 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 :harter <br /> provision was not self-executing, and that the manner in which <br /> it is executed is a political question, not to be disturbed by <br /> the Courts. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 06 <br /> 0001M. Na. 6153. <br /> Me No. Usj~~ <br /> Ref. 1`cl P? <br /> Ref. DWe-ZSEP <br />