COMM. 010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I SLP *. RF\1F. COURT OF HAWA11-74 • •1 Opinion of the Court • Except for paragraph 14 of section 13-2. and section 13-3. l ised rter are all of the challenged provisions revised charterf the �and alll�aertain tc► .•1 • contained in article 8 c f the E. t • he several departments of the County of 'Maui. Appellants contend the provisions of the revised charter ! set forth in chapters 2-and 3 of article 8 which authorize the I • i I corporation counsel and the public prosecutor to appoint deputies and necessary staff who "shall be in the exempt • i 1. class of civil service and shall serve at the pleasure of" such 1 corporation counsel and public prosecutor are in conflict with HRS § 76-77, and. therefore. invalid, "-~ 4,i - Appellants further contend that the reviseai .charter prov - , sions of section 8-9.3 which vest in the Mayor rather than in • j the Maui County Civil Service Commission, as was the case 1 , in,the past, the power to appoint and remove the.county director of personnel services and which further require the ' • • director to perform such duties as may be assigned by the i• • t mayor, rather than the commission, in addition to tile duties 4 • as are established under the civil service laws of the State are 1 in conflict with HRS § 7 6-75. and, therefore, invalid. Appellants further contend that.the first paragraph of • section 8-113 of the revised charter which substitutes the t. i _ county planning director for the district engineer of the State department,of transportation as an ex-officio, non-voting. . member of the board of water supply,is in conflict with HRS§ • - 54-12, and, therefore, invalid. •• Appellants further contend that the remainder of section 8-11.3, and sections 8-11.4 and,13-3 of the revised charter • which reduce and curtail all of the autonomous powers and • authority of the board of water supply to manage and operate • the Maui waterworks, granted to the board by HRS chapter • . • 54,are in conflict with statutory provisions of HRS chapter 54 and, therefore, invalid. Appellants further contend that the power of the police commission to remove the chief of police has been modified by section 8-12.3 of the revised charter; that such charter • provisions which would require the commission to give to the chief of police information in writing of the charges leading to , i t 1