|
Safety Coordinator, and that function, to the Department of Civil Service - the
<br />Commission is very pleased that you've considered that and proposing a Charter
<br />Amendment to that, and they support the proposal.
<br />With respect to my testimony, I have three areas I wanted to briefly touch upon. One is
<br />really a substantive matter, but let me first talk about the qualification requirements in
<br />general. I notice, in reviewing the qualification requirement, that there 's a variety of
<br />ways that the qualifications are described. I've noted in my written testimony the
<br />various instances where sometimes we ask for 3 years administrative experience,
<br />sometimes we ask for 5. Sometimes we ask for responsible administrative experience,
<br />sometimes we don't. Sometimes we make reference to experience in the public or
<br />private sector, sometimes we don't. So, as a person who probably would be called
<br />upon to interpret and apply this, I would very much appreciate consistency if the
<br />Commission, in fact, did not intend differences in the qualification requirement in terms
<br />of, for example, administrative experience. When you do have different language, the
<br />rules of interpretation dictates that you give meaning to the differences. I just wanted to
<br />point that out.
<br />The second area is concerning the qualifications for my position, the Director of
<br />Personnel. I believe, at one time you folks were considering a proposal that, I believe,
<br />followed the HRS, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, and then I notice, in the most recent
<br />packet, the qualifications weren't included as a proposal. I would like to propose that,
<br />yes, you do specify, to me, a little bit more detailed qualifications than what the law
<br />provides. I've suggested following the format that I found throughout your proposals,
<br />basically 5 years in an HR function area, and 3 years in an administrative capacity. The
<br />current description doesn't really lend itself to having actual experience. That's one
<br />problem. The other problem is the use of the term `scientific methods in public
<br />administration'. Me, or my counterparts, have no idea what that qualification is. I,
<br />personally, don't believe there's a conflict between the qualification in the law and if the
<br />Charter was to contain more specific qualification. So, I would suggest that HR is no
<br />longer a paper -pushing agency. It encompasses a vast variety of skills, knowledges
<br />and abilities, and is, today, recognized as a profession, and I think the qualifications for
<br />the position should reflect that also.
<br />The third area I wanted to comment on was the part of the removal of the Fire Chief.
<br />My comments is not so much as to that issue, but to the issue of equity among other
<br />similarly situated positions. For positions that are appointed and removed by the
<br />Commission, which is what the Fire Chief proposal is about, it's only for the Fire Chief
<br />that you provide that before termination, the motion for termination must provide
<br />reasons, and the Fire Chief must be given an opportunity to respond to the reasons
<br />before actual removal. And all I'm saying is we should treat similarly situated positions
<br />equally. First of all, we're going to be left with that provision for ten years, but
<br />otherwise, you are emphasizing, once again, that the removal of the Fire Chief position
<br />2
<br />
|