COMM. 010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. y • SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-7 • Opinion of the Court • minin:;,,et qualification of five years of training and experi- ence in law enforcement, at least three of which shall have s . been in a responsible administrative capacity. HRS § 281-17 • (Supp. 1975)docs not expressly require any minimum qualifi- ' cation for the appointment of director of•the department of liquor control. Therefore, this section conflicts with HRS § •281-17 (Supp. 1975). • 8:• The provisions of sections 8-13.4 and 13-2.14 of the i revised charter prohibit the liquor control commission or any of its members from investigating complaints regarding viola- , { tions of State liquor control laws or the commission's rulesi and regulations and reporting such violations to the prosecut- I ing officer of the county. To this extent these provisions, therefore, conflict with HRS § 281-17 (Supp. 1975), which 1. authorizes the liquor control commission and each member thereof to investigate such violations and to report the viola- tions to the prosecuting officer. Appellants contend that the ' l conflict between these charter provisions and HRS § 281-17 (Supp. 1975) renders the charter provisions invalid. • of he appellants is that each of these The contention PP i . revised charter provisions specifically mentioned above is invalid under article VII of the State Constitution and•HRS § • ) 50-15. Appellants argue that the State Constitution does not i provide for true home rule charters'for political subdivisions E • of the State; that our State Constitution grants to political l i subdivisions only such powers as are delegated to them by the 4 legislature by general laws; that there are only three limited 1 exceptions to this legislative control over local affairs, and l division s right the political su is { oneof such exceptions Yaatre • .. r. � 'vand administrative structure to form its execut)ve,legislative and organization without legislative interference.2 They ifurther argue that these challenged charter amendments and 1 provisions are not concerned with executive, legislative and {e c 1 1 Appellants state that two other excepti„ns are: 11)The charter drafted by a 11 political subdivision need not be submitted to a legislative body for approval:and(2) the explicit prohibition found in article VII. seri" 4 that no law shall be passed mandating any political subdivision to pay any previously accrued claim. / .I I. 1