|
Kaho'ohanohano v. State Page 17 of 46
<br /> Teachers'Association(HSTA)],this court noted its"doubts" as to HSTA's standing to bring suit,observing that"[t]he defendants
<br /> challenge HSTA's standing to sue[,and although we have doubts that the [HSTA]has standing,we do not find it necessary to discuss
<br /> the question." Id. at 256 n.1,768 P.2d at 1281 n.1.
<br /> . . . The BOE stands in a position to the DOE similar to that occupied by the [BOR]with respect to the University of Hawai'i. The BOE
<br /> is vested under our constitution with"the power,as provided by law,to formulate policy and to exercise control over the public school
<br /> system,"Haw. Const. art.X, §3,and"jurisdiction over the internal organization and management of the public school system,as
<br /> provided by law." Id. The [BOR] is constitutionally delegated"the power,as provided by law,to formulate policy,and to exercise
<br /> control over the university,"Haw. Const. art.X, §6,and has"exclusive jurisdiction over the internal organization and management of
<br /> the university." Id.Thus,the holding in Waihee suggests that the [BOR]would have "standing"to seek declaratory relief on behalf of
<br /> the University of Hawaii,under similar provisions in HRS §§37-36(Supp. 2000)and 37-37(Supp. 2000).
<br /> 95 Hawaii at 395-96, 23 P.3d at 730-31 (Acoba, J., concurring) (some emphasis added and some in original).
<br /> Recognizing the interest of the ERS and Trustees in the instant proceedings, and relying on the concurring opinion in
<br /> Mottl, the court granted Trustees' motion to intervene:
<br /> [T]he [c]ourt is persuaded by the citation of the Mottl. . . case by the [Trustees] that[Trustees]is an appropriate entity to bring an
<br /> action to represent it and its members.And clearly the ERS has the power to sue and be sued in its own right.
<br /> The following was added by the court:
<br /> The [c]ourt is also of the mind that[Trustees]has an interest in its own accord in this matter because [Trustees] is the entity that is
<br /> charged with the obligation of managing the retirement system for future generations of persons who may have not even be born yet and
<br /> so hope that the ERS will continue to live on beyond the years of the people who are actually named in the lawsuit. So [Trustees] may
<br /> represent those individuals who may benefit in the future and have an interest in its own interest[sic]in that regard to protect those
<br /> interests as well.
<br /> Akin to the BOR in Mottl, and the BOE in Waihee, Trustees are entitled to standing to challenge legislative actions
<br /> impairing the retirement system, given at the least, Trustees' statutory obligations for "[t]he general administration and
<br /> the responsibility for the proper operation of the [ERS]," under HRS § 88-23.
<br /> XXV.
<br /> Having determined the Trustees have standing to bring their complaint, we decide only those preliminary objections
<br /> raised by the State in regard to the ERS. In conjunction with the State's argument(4)that the "Trustees' claim for
<br /> declaratory relief is moot" because "Act 100 has been fully implemented by the ERS," (emphasis added), the State
<br /> asserts that "the actual implementation of Act 100 was performed by the ERS" and that because the "ERS has been
<br /> paid by the public employers[,] . . . there is nothing further to be done." The State specifically points to the ERS'
<br /> actions of applying 1225,255,800 of excess earnings credit for fiscal year 2000 and $121,686,800 of excess earnings
<br /> credit for fiscal year 2001, and calculat[ing] the specific amounts the [State] and each of the counties owed the ERS
<br /> for fiscal years 2000 and 2001," to show the Act has been implemented.
<br /> Trustees reply that "[t]he State's argument . . . that once the Legislature passed Act 100 and the ERS calculated
<br /> payments based on Act 100, the right to judicial relief ceased" is without merit because the State is "[e]ssentially
<br /> arguing that mootness means the courts cannot address a wrong once the wrong has occurred." Further, as Trustees
<br /> note, "the State cites no authority for the proposition that . . . Trustees' claims are moot."
<br /> XXVI.
<br /> This court has explained mootness as follows:
<br /> A case is moot if it has lost its character as a present,live controversy of the kind that must exist if courts are to avoid advisory
<br /> opinions on abstract propositions of law.The rule is one of the prudential rules of judicial self-governance founded in concern
<br /> about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. We have said the suit must remain alive
<br /> throughout the course of litigation to the moment of final appellate disposition to escape the mootness bar.
<br /> Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v.Lam,69 Haw. 81, 87,734 P.2d 161, 165 (1987)(internal citations,quotation marks,and brackets
<br /> omitted). Simply put, "[a] case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief." City Bank v. Saje Ventures 11,7 Haw.
<br /> App. 130, 134,748 P.2d 812, 815 (1988)(quoting United States v. Oregon,718 F.2d 299,302(9th Cir. 1983)).
<br /> http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008
<br />
|