My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-03-03_Oath_of_Office
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Legal Opinions
>
2006-03-03_Oath_of_Office
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:38:28 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:37:49 PM
Metadata
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
Harry Kim +?Y�°•.`.".�w Lincoln S.T.Ashida <br /> Mayor �',� ��� <br /> W1� Corporation Counsel <br /> Gerald Takase <br /> Assistant Corporation <br /> o:'M'' Counsel <br /> COUNTY OF HAWAII <br /> OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL <br /> 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4262 . (808)961-8251 Fax(808)961-8622 <br /> f.7 1 <br /> .,�. om. . ,.,,...,. ....W.=. ,.,�,._.. .� <br /> March 3, 2006 <br /> TO: Michael R. Ben <br /> Deputy Director of Personnel <br /> FROM: Michael J. Udovic <br /> Deputy Corporation unsel <br /> RE: Opinion Re: Oath of Office <br /> Our File: WRK 06-11716 <br /> I reviewed the legislative history of the amendment to Article XVI, Section 4, of the <br /> Hawaii State Constitution, as well as the relevant code sections, and conducted research into the <br /> question posed by your inquiry. <br /> Our office is of the opinion that the 1992 amendment to the Constitution of the State of <br /> Hawaii does not preclude the County of Hawaii from requiring loyalty oaths from officers, <br /> either elected or appointed, prior to entering upon the duties of their position with the County of <br /> Hawaii. <br /> The legislative history of this amendment shows that testimony in support of the <br /> amendment was motivated by a professor who was recruited for a position with the University of <br /> Hawaii who declined the appointment because of the requirement that he sign the loyalty oath. <br /> He was quoted at the time as saying that, "loyalty is like love: It can be given but it cannot be <br /> demanded . . . loyalty oaths are meaningless because disloyal people will sign them anyway." <br /> The Committee report goes on to reason that the wholesale application of the requirement as one <br /> more piece of paper to be signed, as part of the pre-employment paperwork, is neither necessary <br /> nor desirable. The presumption of loyalty is enough. Therefore, the Constitution was changed to <br /> require loyalty oaths from a minimum number of people. <br /> Even though this language may be persuasive as it relates to the fundamental philosophy <br /> of a loyalty oath, the amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit a County from requiring a <br /> loyalty oath from its officers as it deems appropriate. This Constitutional amendment sets the <br /> minimum standard under which there can be no dispute. Those persons named in Article XVI, <br /> Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.