2004-01-AU Hawai‘i County Police Department Vehicles

Home

SECTION 2 AUDI TOR'SOFFI CE INQUIRY TO CORPORATION COUNSEL RE: SHOPO CONTRACT This section presents: A. Auditor's Office Inquiry Re: SHOPO Contract B. Corporation Counsel Guidance dated August 26, 2003 A. Auditor's Office Inquiry Re: SHOPO Contract I n Jul y, 2003 the A udi tor' s Off i ce requested an opi ni on f rom the Off ce of Corporati on Counsel regardi ng certai n provi si ons of A rti d e 18 (" %b§ di zed V ehi d es") i n the SH OPO contract. A copy of the request for opinion dated July 15, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Ki ri u is attached to this report in Appendix D. Specifically, we sought to clarify and determine five questions, summarized below: (1) Whether the County coul d change pol i ci es regardi ng automobi I es for pol i ce use upon consul ti ng the Union as stipulated in Section J, Article 18 of the SHOPO contract and, rel atedl y, if such consul tati on coul d be i ni ti ated at any ti me duri ng the I i f of the current SH OPO contract or any subsequent contract; (2) Whether the County coul d termi nate al I owances for subsi di zed cars at any ti me duri ng the ei ght years of authori zed use as outl i ned i n Secti on P, A rti cl e 18 of the SH OPO contract, i n the event that the Pol i ce Department transi ti oned to county -owned pol i ce f I eet vehi d es; (3) Whether the County i ncurs a I awful , contractual obl i gati on to provi de an al I owance to subsi di ze the cost of a personal vehi d e, i n whol a or i n part, used i n pol i ce servi ce; (4) Whether the provi si ons of Secti on M, A rti d e 18 of the SH OPO contract rel ati ng to the Counti es of M aui and Kauai, pursuant to thei r conversi on to a pol i ce fl eet program, appl y to the County of H awai ` i ; and (5) The extent of pol i cy -maki ng j uri sdi cti on of the County Counci I wi th respect to pol i ce vehi cl es. Thi s questi on arose pursuant to a Jul y 13, 2004 arti cl e i n Vest H awai i Today. The arti d e stated that B i g I sl and SH OPO Chai rman Emory Spri nger sai d: " A s I ong as there i s a contract between the empl oyer and empl oyee, or i is uni on, then the practi ce of converti ng from subsi di zed motor vehi d es to f I eet vehi d es cannot be changed i n part or enti rel y." A ccordi ng to the arti cl e, M r. Spri nger al so expressed hi s bel i of that " the counci I members were appri sed through Corporati on Counsel that they have no jurisdiction over the matter." For reference, a copy of the 7/13/03 Vest H awai i Today arti d e i s attached to thi s report i n A ppendi x D. The thrust of the A udi tor' s Off i ce i nqui ry was to determi ne whether pol i cy -maki ng rel aced to subsi di zed police cars was fundamentally governed by the SHOPO contract or by the decision - making of the H awai ` i County Pol i ce Chi of and/or the County Cound 1. Rd atedl y, we sought to assess the potenti al f i scal i mpact of conversi on to a county -owned fl eet program based upon Corporati on Counsel's i nterpretati on of Secti ons J, M, and P, A rti d e 18, of the SH OPO contract. 10