My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0953.006 1996-1998
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
1996-1998
>
COM 0953.006 1996-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 1:18:42 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 8:13:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
1996-1998
Communication
0953
Point
006
Author
Richard W. 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 0953.000 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
<br /> Curtis Tyler, Hawaii County Ccc.:nc-l <br /> 9 June 1998 <br /> Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> When this question has been raisers 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 letter of the law, it does not <br /> satisfy the spirit. gee Rule 24, council 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, The MBA-'_;5 aictionarv, 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. Identification of the fundamental governmental objectives, <br /> 2. Selection of 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 /> 6. Consideration of the major uncertainties involved, <br /> 7. Display of the costs and effectiveness of each alternative <br /> in a form understandable to the decision makers. <br /> Harry P. Hatry, "Overview of Modern Program Analysis <br /> Characteristics and Techniques," Urban institute R rin <br /> (Washington, D. C., Urban Institute, 1970), P. 39. <br /> In view of the fact that the Director of Finance estimates that <br /> there are probably close to 200 pLOgrams 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 impossible <br /> to meet with the present or reasonably expected resources of the <br /> county. <br /> Accordingly, it is recommended that consideration is given to an <br /> ordinance of reasonable expectations, which would establish <br /> procedures within present capacity to implement the Charter <br /> requirement. <br /> RDW:1882Lbre <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.