My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-12-04_Memorandum_to_Petitioner_Opposition_to_Planning_Director_Motion_to_Dismiss_re_Herron_Whitehead
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2006-12-04_Memorandum_to_Petitioner_Opposition_to_Planning_Director_Motion_to_Dismiss_re_Herron_Whitehead
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:38:52 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:37:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
granted to the Board by the County Charter Section 6-10 2 of the County Charter creates the <br /> Board and limits its powers to hearing and determining appeals from final decisions of the <br /> Director regarding matters within his respective jurisdiction and conducting hearings in <br /> accordance with Chapter 91, HRS, and the County Charter If, for example, an appeal of a final <br /> decision of the Director was pending before the Board, the appellant or any party to the appeal <br /> could petition the Board for a declaratory ruling on how the Board will apply the Board's Rules <br /> with respect to evidence, oral arguments, or whether the Board will waive or suspend any of the <br /> Board's Rules, etc In these examples,the Board would certainly have jurisdiction to issue a <br /> declaratory ruling because they relate to the powers granted to the Board by Section 6-10 2 of the <br /> County Charter If the Board refused to issue a declaratory ruling regarding an issue over which <br /> it has jurisdiction,the Board's refusal to make a ruling could be appealed to the courts See <br /> Lingle v HGEA, 107 Hawaii 178 (2005) <br /> Petitioners cite to the Lingle case for the proposition that the wording in Section 91-8, <br /> HRS, "was meant to induce agencies to issue declaratory rulings more frequently than had <br /> occurred in the past" However, this statement was taken out of context and is misleading as a <br /> result The complete sentence to which Petitioners refer is as follows <br /> The language of this section does not necessarily require an agency <br /> to issue a declaratory order in every instance but is intended to <br /> induce them to do so more frequently than they may have been <br /> doing in the past <br /> The issue addressed by the Court in Lingle was whether the circuit court had junsdiction <br /> over a refusal by the Hawaii Labor Relations Board ("HLRB")to issue a declaratory ruling, not <br /> whether the HLRB had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory ruling Although not addressed by the <br /> Court, the HLRB did have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory ruling because the issue related to <br /> an interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement Unlike the HLRB in Lingle, the Board <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.