Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> e <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (enclosure 12). <br /> <br /> Ms. Leithead-Todd, the Legislative Auditor for the County of <br /> <br /> Hawaii, admits that no program review has been done, as do <br /> Councilmembers De Lima, Rath, Childs, Hale, Bonk-Abramson, <br /> <br /> Arakaki, and Schutte (enclosures 13-20). <br /> <br /> Conclusion <br /> <br /> It seems clear then, by admissions of principals, by <br /> comparison with competent program reviews, by admission of the <br /> <br /> county clerk, by the paucity of evidence available, that the <br /> <br /> marijuana eradication program of the county of Hawaii has never <br /> been critically reviewed as mandated by section 3-16 (today) of <br /> <br /> the Hawaii County Charter, that the annual budget review does not <br /> <br /> constitute critical review for any program. <br /> <br /> This is unfortunate because reasoned discourse on any issue <br /> is not possible without good information. Whether the marijuana <br /> <br /> eradication program is necessary or feasible or useful or <br /> <br /> achieving its goals or the results intended cannot even be <br /> discussed until some body, presumably the office of the county <br /> <br /> legislative auditor or an outside independent auditor (Deloit and <br /> <br /> Touche, for example), critically reviews the program and asks <br /> <br /> serious questions and receives relevant answers. <br /> I have some 2000 pages of research on this issue, dating <br /> <br /> back. 14 years, and will be happy to try to provide you with any <br /> <br /> details or answers to any questions you may have on this subject. <br /> Questions concerning legislative intent, the technical meaning of <br /> <br /> the language used in 3-17 and Rule 24, are better answered at <br /> <br /> <br /> 6 <br />