HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMM. 010 •
• •
•
HERBERT, T. M'A` Alc 'H1 )�57§'F yi -
MAYOR ' t • o a\ \i
s,
EDWARD L. SILVA w d - . 11 -7- 4,111
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL SERVICES • -
•
•
V • ;
• COUNTY OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
• January 16, 1979 •
•
TO: HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION
FROM; EDWARD L. SILVA, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL SERVICES
SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF OPERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I am attaching to this communication five documents which will help the
Charter Commission in its deliberations over the Department of Personnel
Services.
1. Communication dated May 2, 1978, to Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri,
Councilman; from the Director of Personnel Services indicating goals,
programs and productivity standards of the department.
2. Communication dated August 21, 1978, to Honorable Herbert T. Matayoshi,
Mayor, from the Director of Personnel Services which is the Annual Report for
FY. 1977-1978 and gives more operational details than the preceding communication.
3. Communication dated November 16, 1978, to Honorable Herbert T.
Matayoshi, Mayor, from the Director of Personnel Services which is the Budget
Message for FY 1979-1980 and provides insight as to what is planned for the
ensuing fiscal year.
4+. Item No. 4 is a decision from the Supreme Court of Hawaii (HGEA v.
Maui County) which indicates, the problems of conflicting legal documents, in
this -case, charter provisions which conflict with general laws.
MEMBER
COMM. P-1 Feo: p..44
Hawaii County Charter Commission -2- January 16, 1979
This decision is crucial• to the success of the Charter Commission and
should be read and studied by all of the Charter Commission members.
5. Item No. 5 is a table of organization and a functional chart of
the department.
Recommendations
We recommend that Article VII Executive Branch - Departments or Agencies
Under Commissions Chapter 1 be amended to read as follows:
"Department artment of Civil Service
"Section 7-1.1. Organization. There shall be a department of civil
service which shall include a personnel director, commission and staff.
"Section 7-1.2. Powers, Duties and Functions. The department and
commission shall be established and function according to statute.
"Section 7-1.3. Director's Salary. The position of personnel director
shall be assigned by the commission to its appropriate place in the
salary schedule. "
Rationale
1. The title of the department is changed from "Department of Personnel
Services" to "Department of Civil Service" in order to conform with Chapter
76-71, HRS, which states, "There shall be a department of civil service for
each of the counties of Hawaii . . . "
Sections7-1.1 and 2 conform to the HGEA v.Maui County case in which
it is clearly stated that "It was not the intent of Article VII, Section 2
(State Constitution) to grant to the political subdivisions authority to
adopt charter provisions on civil service which would conflict with statutes"
(p. 2).
While charter provisions with respect to structure and organization are
superior to statutory provisions, subject to provisions of general law, the
preceding recommendations would remove any possibility of conflict and
V .
Hawaii County Charter Commission -3- January 16, 1979
continuing problems on jurisdiction.
3. The statute gave the commission authority to set the director's salary
up to May 7, 1977. Act 61, SLH 1977 (H. B. No. 1353) removed this authority
from the commission andapparentlyleft the matter up to the counties.
In order to strengthen the merit system by making it less dependent on
political sources, the director's salary should be set by the commission and
not by elected officials whom the director will have to deny requests from
time to time. Depending on the character of the person, it is possible to
control or influence by way of the purse. An axiom in political science is
that he who controls the purse strings ultimately controls all else.
In order to keep the merit system as free as possible from political
influence, the director should be fully controlled by the commission. The
commission appoints the director and may at pleasure remove him. It seems
only proper that they also control him by setting his rate of pay. No one likes
to have more than one boss.
4. Another important recommendation is that each department be made
fully responsible for the training of its employees.
At present only the police department has such a specific provision.
Section 7-2.5(b) reads«"Train, equip, maintain and supervise the force of
police officers and employees pursuant to the rules of the police commission."
Article IV Executive Branch General Provisions Section 4-5(d) should
be amended to read as follows :
"Supervise and train all employees in the performance of their duties."
Rationale
While a supervisor has the responsibility to train, there has been some
question as towhere this responsibility belongsand this_ is a good opportunity
^ f Hawaii County Charter Commission -4- January 16, 1979
to focus authority and responsibility for this function.
Each department head, each supervisor, is responsible for personnel
management in his department within the laws, rules and regulations in effect. '
Up to July 1, 1978, through Section 76-38, HRS, the personnel director
had considerable responsibility in the training function and we did the best
we could with what we had. For an indication you may refer to the attached
documents.
After July 1, 1978, Section 76-38, HRS, was repealed by Act 48, SLH 1978
(S. B. No. 1533-78). The responsibility for a statewide training program
rests with state officials who are guided by an advisory committee on training
which includes the personnel directors of the counties. In the same manner
our function should be to guide and give consultation to the operating
departments in their training programs, but the actual responsibility for
the training rests or should rest with each operating department.
Since the responsibility for training by the Department of Personnel
Services in Section 76-38, HRS, has been repealed and we must function
according to statute, it is only logical to put the training responsibility
in the departments with the Department of Personnel Services providing
consultative expertise as requested.
This concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I will be
glad to answer them.
EDWARD L. SILVA
• Director of Personnel Services
attachments
•
HERBERT .MAYOR AYOSHI ' 4
EDWARD L. SILVA -•It
DIRSCTOR Of PERSONNEL SERVICES
Of �
COUNTY OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES •
45 Aupuni Strut
Nilo, Hawaii 96720
May 2, 1978
•
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri, Chairman
Finance Committee
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
•
Dear Councilman Tajiri:
•
The following is submitted in response to your communication dated
February 22, 1978.
Our goals are established by Chapters 76 (Civil Service Law), 77
(Compensation Law), 78 (General Provisions on Public Service) , 79 (Leaves
of Absence), 80 (Hours of Work) , 82 (Incentive and Service Awards), 83
(Interchange of Public Employees), and 89 (Collective Bargaining in Public
Employment),.Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Specific goals as contained in the,laws are as follows:
1. To provide equal opportunity forallregardless, of race, sex, age,
religion, color, ancestry or politics in relation to government
employment.
2. To provide impartial selection of the ablest person for government
service by means of competitive tests which are fair.
3. To provide just opportunity for competent employees to be promoted
within the service.
4. . To provide reasonable job.. security for the competent employee.
5. To provide systematic classification of all positions through
adequate job evaluation.
6.. - To provide proper balance in employer-employee relations between
•
the people as the employer andemployeesas the individual citizens.
7. . To achieve a well-trained and productive working force.
McNees
la PO{ Num* AU
A
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri -2- May 2, 1978
8. To provide a compensation plan which will attract and retain
competent persons for government service and which recognizes
the different levels and kinds of work with relative compensation.
9. To provide uniformity in personnel administration and benefits as
required by law.
10. To assist the Mayor as one of his representatives in the collective
bargaining process and to assist in the implementation of negotiated
contracts. (Assigned by the Mayor's Office. )
11. To recognize outstanding employees through an awards program.
12. To meet Federal goals as embodied in Federal legislation when
applicable to the personnel program of the County. government.
In addition to the preceding, other specific assignments from the Mayor's
Office are as follows:
1. Assignment to serve as a member on the Advisory Committee for the
Center for Governmental Development.
2. Assignment to serve as Equal_.Employment Opportunity Coordinator for. .
• the County of Hawaii.
3. Assignment to serve as Vice Chairperson on the Hawaii County Ancillary
Manpower Planning Board. •
4. Assignment to serve on the Statewide IPA Advisory Commission.
5. _Assignment to serve as a.member on the Committee on the Status of
Women.
6. Assignment to the Deputy to serve as the. Mayor's representative in
the collective bargaining process and as contracts administrator.
• .Description of Each Major Program
• An outline of each major-program:.to achieve or maintain our goals is as
follows:
A. Administration
1. _Internal administration of the Department of Personnel Services.
_2. Administration of the personnel program for the County of Hawaii
as provided by the Hawaii County Charter, State. statutes, the
Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, directives ,
of-the Mayor and Federal laws.
B. Employment
•
1. Determines sources of labor supply. Recruits.
•
2. Determines community wage rates and labor practices by survey
and study.
•
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri -3 May 2, 1978
•
3. Estimates personnel needs, of the County.
4. Establishes job requirements and job specifications.
5. Selection.
a. Processes applications
• b. Interviews applicants
c. Conducts examinations (written, oral, performance, evaluation
of training and experience)
•
d. Joins in test validation research with other jurisdictions
C. Promotions, transfers, discharges, demotions, separations, etc.
1. Maintains records, determines qualifications of employees seeking
promotion or transfer, processes discharges, demotions, separations
in accordance with law.
2. Investigates to make certain that the civil service law, the Rules
and Regulations and Charter have been followed in all personnel
transactions (certification).
3. Gives consultation to departments as requestedor as needed on
provisions of negotiated contracts.
D. Training.
1. Responsible for personnel development, personnel relations, and .
personnel welfare for maximum employee effectiveness.
a. Drafts training policy and changes with Mayor's approval.
b. Surveys training needs.
c. Establishes and coordinates training resources.
d. Implements training programs.
E. Wage and Salary Administration
covered b Cha Chapters76 and HRS.
1. Analyzes allpositions77,
Y Y P
2._ Prepares class specifications.
3. Classifies all positions.
4. Prices and makes pricing adjustments of all classes in the County
of Hawaii and in the other political subdivisions throughout the
State.
a. Conference of Personnel Directors' function. Act 188, Session
Laws of Hawaii 1961, as amended. (Statewide jurisdiction)
5. Conducts wage surveys to establish rates for various classes.
•
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri -4 May. 2, 1978
6. Responsible for administration of payprogram as it pertains to
vacation, leaves (sabbatical, jury, military, etc. ), overtime,
hoursof work, split shift pay, stand-by pay, etc. )
7. Enforces evaluation of employee performance program.
F. Health
1.. Administers the pre-employment and medical physical examination '
program as required.
G. Retirement System
1. Gives advice andinformation to employees.
2. Assists persons on retirement with related problems.
3. Assists Retirement System representatives with consultation schedules
and visits for County and State employees.
H. Research and Development
1. Maintains central file of all personnel records.
2.. Conducts research on problems and proposes solutions and recommenda-
tions (rule changes, recommended legislation, and technical methods).
I. Community Cooperation
1. Gives talks to schools, colleges, employee groups, ontheradio
and elsewhere as requested.
J. Collective Bargaining-Employee-Employer Relations
1. . Serves as a representative of the. Mayor in the collective`bargaining
process and Contract Administrator for negotiated contracts.
a. Seven bargaining units' negotiations:
1) Unit 1 - Blue Collar Non-Supervisory
2) Unit 2 - Blue Collar Supervisors
3) Unit 3 - White Collar Non-Supervisory
4) Unit 4 - White Collar Supervisors'
5) Unit 11 - Fire Fighters
6) Unit 12 - Police Officers
7) Unit 13 - Professional and Scientific
2. Works with employeerepresentatives, departmentheads, and employees
toward the solution of personnel problems.
a. Principal areas: collective bargaining, classification, wages,
grievances and arbitration.
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri -5- May 2, 1975
• K. Civil Service Commission
•
1. Hears appeals.
2. Holds public hearings and conducts investigations.
3. Adopts and amends rules and regulations.
(Note: The staff provides technical, secretarial and other services. )
L. Uniformity
1. Works closely with the civil service jurisdictions of the State,
City and County, Maui, and Kauai toward uniformity in all civil
service matters (required by law).
M. Elected Officials •
1. Serves elected officials in personnel matters as requested or
authorized.
2. Provides testimony for legislative- committees in regard to proposed
bills.
3. Appears before the County Council or its committees to discuss
personnel matters as requested.
•
4. Conducts research and studies for legislative bodies as directed. •
N. Incentive and Service Awards Program
1. Recognizes outstanding non-supervisory and supervisory employees.
2. Provides recognition for beneficial suggestions.
•
0. Other Programs
1. Assists with student, Federal and State employment programs as
requested.
Since our goals and programs relate directly to legal requirements in
most situations, it is unlikely that changes will occur unless there are changes
in the laws.
Our most critical need at present is for space which we need quite badly
for the development of our training program and to solve present over-crowded
conditions in the Department of Personnel Services.
•
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri -6- May 2, 1978
•
Comparative Productivity Standards •
• Comparisons With Local Counties
' Staff per 'Budget per Salaries (Per.
Jurisdiction 100 Employees Employee Staff) per Emp.
•
Hawaii .67 180.82 122.21
Kauai 1.10 234.16 187.27
Honolulu .94 '170.72 151.28
Maui Not in Survey
Note: Statistics from Budgets, Staffs and Pay Rates of Public
Personnel Agencies - 1976, International Personnel •
Management Association, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, •
Illinois.
•
While Maui was not a part of the IPMA survey, we do know that they have
more personnel staff, less employees and higher salaries than we have.
Comparisons with Mainland Counties -- Of 21 U. S. counties surveyed (1976)
with 2,000 employees or less, 6 were below us in staffing ratios and 14 were
above. The arithmetic mean for the counties surveyed is .88 while ours is .67
• staff per hundred employees.
Comparisons with Private Enterprise -- ". . . the average company with 1,000
• employees or more, the median personnal budget amounts to $269.00 per employee
per year and the personnel staff ratio dips /from 1 to 100/ to 0.7 person to
100 employees." (From BNA, Dec. 8, 1977, No. 1451, Part II)
•
Our budget of $180.82 compares favorably with the median budget of private
enterprise which is $269.00 per employee per year for companies with 1,000
employees or more and $316.00 for companies with less than 1,000 employees.
We also 'compare favorably in staffing ratios. In companies with less than
1,000 employees the personnel staffing ratio is 1 to 100, i.e. , one personnel
staff member for each 100 employees serviced; whereas we have .67 staff per _100
employees serviced.
•
Companies with over 1,000 employees have a median personnel staffing ratio
of 0.7.person per 100 employees serviced. Since we service about 1,500 employees
with 8 permanent full-time employees our ratio is' .53 staff per 100 employees
• serviced. If we added the 2 CETA workers our ratio ,of ..66 would still. be under
the median of private enterprises 0.7. • If we followed the median of private
enterprise we would have approximately 11 full-time employees in our department
to service 1,500 employees.
Honorable Harvey S. Tajiri -7- May 2, 1978
Complete comparative statistics from BNA are as follows (16% non-business
participants).
i Total Cost per
Budget Employee Staff per 100
All Companies $219,150 316 1.00
By Industry _
Manufacturing 200,000 353 .88
• Non-manufacturing 342,000 403 1.19
Finance 285,000 430 1.30
Non-business 135,000 137 o.69
Health Care 169,000 137 0.69
By Size
Up to 249 Employees 80,000 471 1.81
240 - 499 Employees 134,000 406 1.07
500 - 999 Employees 171,575 272 0.80
1000 Employees or more 600,000 269 0.70
County of Hawaii (1500 Enp.i ) 234,440 156 0.53
. (.66 w/CETA)
Very truly yours,
i,-"/ , ,
,A,t,-ovz -ZiLL- .L.,
WARD L. SILVA
Director of Personnel Services
-1.+EREtRT T. MATAYOSHI $
MAYOR ' o v
EDWARD L. SILVA * 4,
DIRECTOR OF PLRDONNCL VERVICCf / -
OF
COUNTY OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES
23 Aupuni Stroll t
Hue Hawaii 96720
August 21, 1978
c_D M 2-
TO:
TO: HONORABLE HERBERT T. MATAYOSHI, MAYOR
FROM: EDWARD L. SILVA, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL SERVICES
SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 1977-1978
As requested in your letter of July 31, 1978, the following information
is"submitted in brief form.
Name of Department: Department of Personnel Services
Director of Personnel Services: Edward L. Silva
Deputy Director of Personnel Services: • Sakiko Y. Miyao
Staffing: 10 employees, including 1.appointive, 2 CETA and 7 permanent
civil service employees.
These employees. service 1,648 officers and employees of the County of
Hawaii.
Budget: Salaries and Wages $151,081+
Other Current Expenses 19,1+17
Equipment 698
Program Costs:
Pre-employment Physicals 9,000
Training Expenses 6,415
Collective Bargaining Expenses . 15,000
.P'
MEMBER
® Pig NOM Wig.,
: Mayor -2- August 21, 1978
Our total budget for FY 1977-1978 was $201,644. For 1976-1977 it was
$216,987.
Program Descriptions: We will list first our goals, then the more
important and active programs to achieve those goals.
Goals:
1. To provide equal opportunity for all regardless of race, sex, age,
religion, color, ancestry or politics in relation to government
employment.
2. To provide impartial selection of the ablest person for government
service by means of competitive tests which are fair.
3. To provide just opportunity for competent employees to be promoted
within the service. •
4. To provide reasonable job security for the competent employee.
5. To provide systematic classification of all positions through adequate
job evaluation.
6. To provide proper balance in employer-employee relations between the
people as the employer and employees as the individual citizens.
7. To achieve a well-trained and productive working force.
8. . To provide a compensation plan which will attract and retain competent
persons for government service and which recognizes.the different
levels and kinds of work with relative compensation.
9. To provide uniformity in personnel administration and benefits as
required by law.
10. To assist the Mayor as one of his representatives in the collective
bargaining process and to assist in the implementation of negotiated
contracts.
1
' Mayor • a3, August 21, 1978
11. To recognize outstanding employees through an awards program.
12. To meet Federal goals as embodied in Federal legislation when ap-
plicable to the personnel program of the County government.
Programs: Employment, Employee Status Changes and Recordkeeping,
Training, Wage and Salary Administration, Retirement, Employee-Employer
Relations, Servicing the Civil Service Commission, Uniformity of Personnel
Administration Throughout the State, Legislation, and Incentive and Service
Awards.
Additional assignments from the Mayor's Office are as follows: assignment
to the Director to serve as a member on the Advisory Committee for the Center
for Governmental Development; assignment to serve as an Equal Employment Op-
portunity coordinator for the County of Hawaii;. assignment to serve as a
member on the Hawaii County Ancillary Manpower Planning Board; assignment to
serve on the Statewide IPA Advisory Commission; assignment to serve as a
member on the Committee on the Status of Women; assignment to the Deputy to
serve as the Mayor's representative in the collective bargaining process and
as contracts administrator.
The following is brief information on the activities of the more important
programs in the Department.
Employment: The employment function involves the total recruitment and
screening process up to and including certification of eligibles.
Open competitive examinations 35
Promotional examinations 52
Total examinations 87
Number of examinations conducted for
other jurisdictions (total 549 applicants) 128
Mayor -4- August 21, 1978
Number of applicants open
competitive examinations 4,079
Number of applicants promotional
examinations 477
Total Number of Applicants 4,556
Number of applicants passed open
competitive examinations 1,261
Number of applicants passed
promotional examinations 255
Total number of applicants passed 1,519
Training: The objective of the training policy is to provide courses to
meet the needs of employees, so that they may improve efficiency and produc-
tivity in their positions. To this end the courses offered achieved the
desired goals.
For FY 1977-1978 emphasis continued in supervisory management, discipline
and grievance handling and human relations.
Emphasis will be placed on obtaining more input on training needs from
the departments, so that meaningful and practical courses can be presented.
• Working with the Hawaii Community College 114 clerical and 3 trade students
were placed with the County under the Cooperative Education Program for the
1977-1978 FY. •
Training programs for the 1977-1978 FY were as follows:
Courses No. of Courses Participants
Principles of Superyisory Management I 3 47
Principles of Supervisory Management II 2 34
Meeting the Public 3 54
Grantsmanship Workshop 1 25
•
. t"".
' Mayor -5-
Courses No. of Courses Participants
Organizational Effectiveness 1 22
Introduction to Executive Budget System 1 4
Operation of Aerial Basket 1 10
Report Writing 1 21
On-Scene Accident Investigation Program:. 1 3
Workshop on Handicap and Veterans Compliance
in the Public Sector 1 21
Instructor Training Program in Labor-Management
Relations • 1 1
Clerical Skills Institute 1 27
EEO for Supervisors 1 8
Recreation UHHC 1 1
Fire Science HCC 1 1
Human Relations. Instructor Training 1 1
Supervisors Training 1 5
Orientation 4 15
First Aid 2 15
Fleet and Maintenance Supervisors Course 1 12
Pre-Retirement Workshop 2 70
Safety Workshop . 2 50
Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation 2 2
Effective Letter Writing 1 8
Discipline and Grievance Handling 2 46
Writing Position Descriptions 1 6
Coping with Stress 1 10 :
. Mayor -6- August 21, 1978
Courses No. of Courses Participants
Labor Relations for 1st Line Supervisors 2 20
Arson and Fire Investigation Seminar 1 1
Needs Analysis Workshop 1 1
Essentials of Management 1 1
Selection Interviewing 1 _ 1
Human Relations Techniques in Supervision 1 1
47 544
Five hundred forty-four County employees participated in 33 different
kinds of training courses conducted during the year. The number of courses
name to 47.
Wage and Salary Administration: We participated in the annual pay rate
survey conducted jointly by the Hawaii Employer's Council, the State of Hawaii
and other Counties. Thirty-four establishments were contacted with 33
participating in the survey. One hundred thirteen classes of work were
covered.
We also processed 100 classification actions: 29 initial allocations
and 71 reallocations. Seventeen new classes were established and 11 classes
were abolished.
Employee-Employer Relations: We spent substantial time in interpreting
existing agreements and in resolving problems and grievances. We formulated
a number of written contract interpretations. We participated in a workshop
to develop a statewide uniform contract interpretation policy and procedure.
Servicing the Civil Service Commission:
Number of meetings held: 11 •
Statewide Conferences: On June 14, 15, and 16, 1978, the State Judiciary
hosted a statewide conference in Honolulu and covered items such as collective
. . Mayor , _7_ August 21, 1978
bargaining, 'legislation, rules and regulations, Act 197 dealing with treatment
of excluded employees, EEOC, CETA, OSHA and other subjects. The purpose of
the conferences is to meet legal requirements that civil service administration
be as uniform as practicable throughout the State of Hawaii.
A public hearing. on proposed revisions to Personnel Rules and Regulations.
was held and amendments were adopted.
Civil Service Commission members and the districts they represent are as
follows:
Mr. Yoshimitsu Goya, Chairman, Kohala
Mr. Anastacio Luis, Hilo
Mr. Hiroshi Fujimoto, Honokaa
Mr. Frank Miyamoto, Puna
Mrs. Lillian P. Nahiwa, Hilo
Mr. Donald Shintaku, Ka'u
Mr. Fredrick Spencer, Kona
Legislation: We received a voluminous number of personnel bills, analyzed
or read all of them, and submitted or supported testimony favorable to our
point of view on bills which were important to us.
Incentive and Service Awards Program:
Six non-supervisory and 3 supervisory employees were nominated as
outstanding employees in their respective categories. Mr. Herbert Yamashita
and Mrs. Evelyn Fujiwara were selected as the non-supervisory and supervisory
employees of the year by the Mayor's Awards Committee.
In the incentive awards program we received no suggestions nor recom
mendations for incentive awards from the various departments during the last
fiscal year.
EDWARD . SILVA
Director of Personnel Services
� , P-
(� e Ire",u. ms's rwsa..v i c.- S: <. L cv=
•
November 16 1978 •
TO: HONORABLE HERBERT .T. MATAYOSHI, MAYOR
FROM: EDWARD L. SILVA, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL SERVICES •
SUBJECT: BUDGET MESSAGE (1979-80)
During the 1979-80- fiscal year (FY) emphasis will continue
in collective bargaining, examinations, classification, training
and work related to federal laws-and programs .
Collective
harcfaining• Contracts for.:our .seven collective
' June 30, -.1979 but we cannot •
bargaining knits will terminate on ,.
.I J
. be certain when agreements will' be reached on new contracts even
though negotiations began in the 1978-79 FY.
negotiations. - J .T. new contracts - .. t ..Ti
a C' .� 7
�l
cause,� �obler:s in in, lc..�enta-
���_ expect tc, c� L _ _ neo, t.' p
tion, namely, in interpretation, grievances , training' and workload .
Much time and staff work must be devoted to this area.
Examinations. The examination workload will: continue to" be
heavy. -v,hile we expect to administer about the samenumber of.
examinations as the last FY because of the ,County' s' ,finances
and position non-expansion, we expect to process a large nurter
of job applicants because of the- consistently high unenployment
rate (10 . 5 percent, September, 1978) in the County of- Iiawa i i.
As time permits ,- we will .continue to update our examinations
in order to colc,ply with .new federal employee selection guic2e-
lines.
During the next FY we hope to reap some of the benefits fro:-
the test validation center established with IPA funds under the
jurisdiction of the State.
~ `'•
h onorable Ilerbert T. <Matayoshi, mayor
Pale 2
November 1G , 1978
Classification Restructuring of our classi.ficatlon `syster
will continue inorder to 'gleet ,LEO guidelines, -`and barriers
errployrAent;, not 'job related, " will, be removed as°,we core across
them.
We are- hoping, that departments will stabilize into more
permanent table . of organizations in order,...to °:lessen the wo kload
in this c:epartr:?ent, but will, encouracje� c e')arttlents to n a}-e;. table
of organization and classification chancres where they ;will"` brine r
greater efficiency and less costs; In operations..`, All changes,
'` however,. must be made.. in: accordance with civil •.,service laws,
rules and regulatior's
Training. During the "`197980 FY the aepartrrent will
continue wiuh estabiished training programs for top ranagerer_t
and supervisory personnel:;'. �ibout' 43 raining ;:sessions: covel-ing
a`wide range of. subjects :including h?iran' re1�-tl .ns, ecraul "e'ploy
` , rrent, ,labor
rent, corr�nuter trainl�z�_ clerical` skills ore_ rF:tire
relations and other-,:subjects' are. scheduled for the 19.79 00;
We received-'so1:'e input for, tralnin<<`:frCr' ;the departments..anc:
received very little _input--for', training in blue--coli ar subjects
eques Ls "for the 1979-80 -FY are:,leSs: than. for the,'-„,current
year and is reflectedby a smaller dollar amount in t. e new
budget As in the current T'`i, departr?ents were., o
forward `their training requests;.to ;the Departs ent, of Personnel
Services for 'inclusion in our:: budget
We will continue. to' request='training assistance- frog:? the
State Department of. Personnel Services, the--`State. Advisory,
Committee on Training, 2,IMAG anu: file "State iI'? Ac�vlsor_y '(.ona lttee
In the past: these institutions :-have consic.erably reCucc a ,our
training costs.
1 State Advisor Committee has already--;conducted a state
Zae y
-- " wide training needs survey .including. 'the:.County :of I-,awall and- .is
in tl«::: process of- Levoloping °'a ,statewi...c- training program- for
al.l c1. ,z,::.: s of work.
:Training committees will be established,',in :all juricciictions
to cetcr:r.ine prioriti s, ani.-'progra, s 'ifiere is :veryclose c.00ucra-
tion and- participation by the unions:::in :the,: entire program ' All of
us on the State 1u.:vlsory Co-i' ittee on 'Training are optimistic
about.:'tne success i:lrl�.l' orog re s' o f -the.oror ralil ' thus f c:r am.: are
doing all we can -anL looking forwaru,,towards its successful
a.rmlcrr;entatior:. ..
Honorable l'erber T. ' Matayoshi, s"zayor: ,
Page 3
� over�►ber 16;x:197
'''Tiedical ^tc-,.naards =As;:a .result - federal haws which' forbid
uiscriilna�.ion ,ac ainst the .handicapped, •,an extensive-:study- of ;our
medical standards'`is underway,"through am IPA Brant 61e e.:pect to
ir�plerlent new °and, revised. standards:,,in the-•.19-60 FY :rl'he essence
of the federal laws appear to be Ghat' if a person can` do' the :job,
he cannot be discriminated against` because of.-a .handicap.
In 'summary,.,`while ..our budget: reflects insignificant increases
in certain areas. ; to "cot our. needs for. the 19 7.9=:20 J Y. our total
budget is about $3, 000 less ; han> the :1978-79 FY" as a ;result of a
$6, 000 reaucti•on ii: requests.: for .trainin_c: _-
In conclusion, re uest that the .ac ir.is tratior.
weq ..� ` rive '.
serious consideration to: thegranting''of adcitlor_al space to the 3
Dc�partnent of Personnel_ Services Space:; is �rery ' 7:1 uch r 'n o
for training, conferences and testing of smalh..groups ; In aoai
s ercr wced�>and .the _
- u�l v o
tion, thegeneral- work �area is
serio 0
z
J
'i.
e e-.-when :':,the e
nter` the ae art. en�'
an- inconv nienc
public suffers Y : P
for assistance.
4
,,_, :::',', - , , ,- ' - .
;. Very truly yours,
' :EDY,!nR7L :SILVA ,
nirector- of ,,„-.;,,--
rel :Services
ELS:eyh.
....;,.,..,.-
y rw ti
,,
IINIi:G .PROGRAM 2ND. BUDGET
` r `i9:79-..1910
STATlI tLi1T of GOAL
To provide: all employees opportunity for, r aximur" develops ent
through in-service training and; developr.�ert =progrars and also::
assist enl,�loyces by providing these services
OBJECTIVES
To establish proc�rar's identifying training and developrlental
needs of employees and, schedule training .to;.ret` these nee.c s.',,,,,,-1:,,,,,, „ -, ,, ,.,
Implement and adrlinis.ter, training for the development of
skills: and: knowledge required for. the position.
• Follow-up on and evaluate employee with supervisor' sperfor-
mance for determination. of the- , effectiveness of ,.raini
}
ng
CURRENT O►.'JLCTIVi;5 :
Provide .supervisory and skills _trainingr.: or a continuous basis,
develop programs - in: the areas of :laborrelations. such"'as contract
administration, handling :grievance and collective bargaining along •
with other managerial trainingprograms
iLTriOD or ACCO',PLI.S'iiIL G OL JLCTIVEJ
Tho services will be, where:possible, acro. ,pl1s• r eci by using .
in-house personnel and `tate of Fawaii pros ragas.
Courses
1. Supervisory tRanagement;`'Pt.•. I $ 300. 00.
2. Supervisory`'�ianagcrent Pt II 300.`00
3. Labor Relations for Supervisors 150.00
4 . Pre-retirement t•.orkshop, ;100. 00 .
5. Coping with Stress 20 x $10::,,, 200. 00
6. Fire Science150. 00
7. human Relations 100. 00
8. 11II4P (Starc:arca and Appraisals) 500. 00
9. I:ctricatioii 15000
10. L'L'O for: supervisors '.; 25 x .;l0 250.. 00
11.
Time �Ianagerrent 25: x $10 • 250: 00
12. Introduction to : SLrnervision': 100 00
13. Organizational Development'' (OD) 25 'x $'20 500 00
14. 1:c:ccrtiication., of L1'1\ Instructors 100. 00
15, Land Surveying 600.'00
.� .. 480. 00
.
x $8
60
- t' Plants _
of Wastewater •
1
Operation -
16.
17. Managing Conflict 500. 00
18. Contract't driting 50. 00
19 . Contract Interpretation 50. 00
20. Financial Procedures 100. 00
21. CPR Training 500. 00
22. Telephone Etiquette 100. 00
23. Flu
e tint-x
:p Reading
100. 00
24 . basic Computer Programming 200. 00
25. Report Writing 100. 00
26. Letter Writing 150. 00
27. Investigative Report Writing 600. 00
1 28. Fara 7e
al Trainingaini
1
�
.. ..
200. 00
29 . Financing Levelopment 200 . 00
30. Public Speaking . 300. 00
31. Instructor Training .
- 500. 00
32. Personnel Interview Techniques 300. 00
33. Communication Shills300. 00
34 . Employee Counseling Techniques 300. 00
35. Driver 'irai_ninc (Fire) • 1, 000 . 00
36. OSHA 150. 00
37. Preventative Maintenance of SiiallPower Tools 100. 00
(Park Caretakers)
38 . Red Cross Certification300. 00
39 . Tree-Trir::.~:ing Training . 50. 00
40. flO Training (P. lo;-+C'er) 50. 00
41. LO Training anu r.now Your ya_uipri•.ent for Golf
• Course 50. 00
42. Alarici iJisjatc.hc r - raining (1:ow to Cope Ztiit.1 Stiess) . . 50. 00
43. Miscellaneous raining (IPA, : etc. )
1, 003. 00 ,
Equipi,:ent
CO Overhead Projector 625. 00
(2) Maintenance of Equipment 150. 00
Other
Looks 75. 00
Supplies 200 . 00
Applied Training • 20. 00
Films . . G00 . 00
*13, 200 . 00
•
•
•
_2_
. .• . I I
. .
• • .
. . .
.
, . • .., .
.. ., • (..."/ i '
. f,•Vt.,> 1:".'e•-•I.,f .. 1 ,.."/ 'i''..' • '
-
. ' it -t
, , • • , • / ... e. 1 r . .
. . 41 ..1`,0 a I ...''''-' ••••,..
. . . . .
• . . 1
. .
. ,
i (' •' :'
T '
. . o
. . . .
•
. . • •
' .
. ' • ' •
• 1'-7 -' ' • . r , -; •
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-1.
.. .
• . Syllabus / 4 41 V i
d • t
•
)
. • . HAWAII GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION.
. 1 1
.
•
Li...4 American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, Local 152, AFL-CIO: et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants.
4 ,
. .
Allants. v. COUNTY OF MAUI; and ELMER F.
.21i i
. . CRAVALHO, Mayor-, County of Maui, Defendants-
Appellees
. .
.. • ; 1
• • . . 1
• NO. 6524
4
. . .
• 'i
• APPEAL FROM SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
' • 1
• HONORABLE S. GEORGE FUKUOKA, JUDGE .1 1
. • 3.
•
, • • - . MARCH 22, 1978 1 4
1 1.
. . • • • ' #
, t. . .
- . •' •
-RICHARDSON, C.J.. KOBAYASHI,-OGATA, - 4
1 3
- • . • • ' - MENORrAND KIDWELL, IL • .
' • ;CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—municipal corporations—charters—provisions for
. . .
• , structure and organization. •
Under article VII, section 2 of the State Constitution. as revised, charter
. .
. . provisions relating to a county government's executive,legislative and adminis7
1
trative structure and organization are superior to legislative enactments provid-
• • ing for the same. .
SAME—same—same—genera!laws —provisions for powers and functions.
. . .
Although a charter with respect to provisions dealing with a county
• government's executke.legislative and administrative-structure and organiza. 4 4
•
thin is superior N. statutes, it is nevertheless subordinate to the legislature's 1 I.
....
. authority by general law to allocate and reallocate powers and functions.
. _ .
\ - 4
• . .- .-- MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—statutes —charter romrnissions—powers. • ,_ • j
' •1
A duly formed-county chart..‘r commission under ERS chapter 50.possesses . - .
.
broad powers to formulate a charter. delineating therein the structure of the ! 1 1
county overnment.and enumerating the powct and functions of each county
•
department. board, commission and agency within relevant statutory limits. ......--•• l ,1
. , .
. i J
SAME—charters—conflicting,statutes.• i g.
Under FIRS§ 50-10. the charter upon its adoption shall become the organic .
! 4
. law of the count); superseding any existing charier and all laws affecting the
1 1
organization and government of the county which are in conflict therewith. ,
SAME—same—general lows—stotetride concern or interest—lows relating to i 1
fiscal powers of counties. i
. 4 -.
• The legislature lias t•xpressly reserved under liliS§50-15 the p,•wer to enact • .
. I .
all laws of general application throughout the state mt matters of statewide .• _
t t concern and interest and laws n•lating to.the fiscal pii%vers of the el/on 4.3.
•
) 1
COnSiStent with article VII. sections 3 and 5 of the State Constitution. .
SAME—sante—3(17111', .
MIS § 50-10 was designed so that a charter provision which relates to • .
organization and government of the county would prevail over conflicting statu-
•- •
. .
•
. .
' I 1
. • i
. '
. . .
1 '
. .
- -
Ii
. -- .
. ,. • . •r ..
• '
. • ,
. • • ' i .
.– •
. .
I
. . .
• • • •
. .
. .
. .
.. • .
• i
. .
•
•
_ . . •
1
•
SUPREME COURT OF lHA.%all-2 j
•
•
Opinion of the Court
•
t 1 tory provision, provided such statutory provision is not of statewide concern
•or interest or does not relate to the fiscal powers of the county.
•s I ,4., • CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—effect of intention of framers and people adopting -
' provision. t
I ' • The fundamental principle of construction it to give effect to the intention of
. the framers and the people adopting it. •
r !j!! SAME—same. j
In construing a particular constitutional provision. the object sought to be
accomplished and the evil sought to be remedied should be kept in mind by the
courts. •
e
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS —delegation of potters —statewide or Local
concern.
• I / Because hhe state legislature.duly delegated to the counties the.adminis-
- 4 1 ' tration of police.waterworks and liquor control,the legislature could not be said .;.4
to have preempted the field of regulatii�n..As a result of such delegations,these
I areas ceased to be matters of statewide concern and became matters of local
I \ concern. i
t SAME—charter—structure and organization—conflicting statutory provisions. I
. All challenged provisions of the revised charter-with respect to the depart- I
ments of water supply. police and liquor control relate solely to Maui County's t
executive and administrative structure and organization.and under HRS§50-10 '
. these charter provisions supersede all laws of the state in conflict therewith.
•
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Municipal corporations--charter—home rule. .
. The constitutional amendments made to article. :'II,section 2 of the State
Constitution did not grant complete-home rule to political subdivisions;they only
gave to the local governments limited freedom from legislative control in certain 1.. areas. - t f.
. I. •i
• SAME—same—same—provisions relative to civil service. `'" • - i =
• ' It was not the intent of article VII.section 2 to grant to the political subdivi- , • ;A
-sions authority to adopt charter provisions on civil service which would conflict • ` 1
. with statutes. I q
STATUTES—municipal corporations—charter—conflict with civil service law, c 1
Any conflict in chapters 2 and 3 of the revised charter of Maui County with t
respect to the staff of the corporation counsel and the prosecuting attorney with •
HRS§ 76-77 would render such conflicting charter provisions nugatory. ` b
SAME—same—same—same. F
Any inconsistency between chapter 9.of article 8 of the revised charter and, •
•
• Part III of HHS chapter 76 would result in the latter prevailing. t
OPINION OF THE COURT BY OGATA.J.
- $ • , On February 18, 1977, a decision and final order was
•
entered by the circuit court of the second circuit which up
held the validity of the revised Maui County charter provi- • •e
sions and denied the,injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs- - -
I.
appellants(hereinafter appellants), Hawaii Government Em-
i• ,
TSnin;sal.w--,- ..,rrwirr.. a...70,,—.,wort•-'—...•1..----_- -,. .-----‘•,,,--. ^-,..•11.9.7.1,-..:4-.--•••,-.....-- ....
. .
I.
5
t
l
•
I SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-3 i
Opinion of the Court .
a Count
American Federation of State, y •
f Sc ciation,•.
ployees A.. o
and Municipal Employees, Local 152, AFL-CIO; Leona C.
. e valho; Alvin M. Cortez; Charldine J. Apo; James M.• . . i
i Cra K. Ohi- ,li
• Izumi; Misao Kubota. Reynante Tagorda, Robert
•
•
gashi, King Palmer, and James M. Watari, members of the 1•
Civil Service Commission. County of?11aui: Donald Rickard. t
Joe Y. Kawamura, Toku Arakaki, Hattie Lopes, Edward
•
Haole, David Nobriga, and Henry K. "dila
members of the
Board of Nater Supply, County of Maui: Hideo 4iibu, Frank
Gouveia, Pepito Ragasa, Hannibal Tavares, Wallette Pelle-
grino, and George Tamura, members of the Police Commis-
sion, County of Maui; Joseph Souza, and John Arisumi, ;
Richard Caldito, Sr.. Pauline Castanera, and Tokumi Toku-
hisa, members of the Liquor Control Commission, County of • •
_II Maui. Appellants now appeal to us from those adverse por- !
i
tions of the decision and ficial order.1 The defendants-appel- 1 .
lees (hereinafter appellees) are the County of Maui andits
' , duly elected,qualified and acting mayor,Elnier F. Cravalho.
We affirm the decision and final order except we reverse
• that part.which relates to HRS chapter 76, part III. I , I
. , In 1967. the people of the County of Maui first adopted a , l
• charter which provided for their own local self-government. 3
This charter by its own terms became effective on January 2, i
•
1969. Prior to that date the government of the County of Maui l • i.
was entirely statuory in origin. See generally HRS chapters I
•
46, 52, 54, 61, 62 and 66.Thereafter, the charter commission
•of the County of Maui amended the charter in several re 1
spects, and at the general election held onNo;-ember 2, 1976,
the Maui charter provisions, including the revisions, were. • .
i i iatified. The charter as so revised took effect on January 1.
- • i i ' 1977,except those revised provisions of the charter which the
'i i circuit court temporarily restrained from implementation. In . . ' . i
• 1 ' this opinion we shall refer to the. Maui Charter as amended as {
1the revised charter.
!
t On March 14. 1977.the court below entered an order to extend the terms of a
temporary restraining order first issued on December 29. 1976. enjoining de-
fendants-appellants from Incplementlug the challenged provisions of the. Maui
County charier which were revised.pending this appeal.
+ e
e
t
!
!I ,.,,.-,__• ss•••,,....•,..•.••,...e..,.... ."
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
• 4, ,� .. '
, .
•
•
• •
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII—S .
Opinion of the Court '
1 i ` his dismissal and a hearing before the commission to effect . ,
*•
his dismissal are in conflict with HRS§52-34,and.therefore,
invalid. 1 �1
Appellants further contend that some of these charter .
in effect when the
Maui Charter was
• tprovisions which were
continued in Effect under the
amended on November 2; 19 x 6, .,
• revised •
charter. which appellants contend to be invalid for
being in conflict with the laws of the State. These charter
1 provisions are as follows: E
i 1. Section 8-9.3 of the revised charter provides that the i "
. director of the department of personnel services '`shall have
had a minimum,of five years of training and experience in
personnel administration, either in•public service or private
business, or both, at least three of•which shall have been in a
responsible administrative capacity." This section conflicts
•
• with HRS§ 76-75. which provides that the personnel director
• of each county "shall, at the time of his appointment, and .
thereafter, be thoroughly familiar with the principles•and .
' methods of personnel administration and shall believe in -
1 applying merit principles and scientific administrative
• I • methods to public personnel administration."
•• i 2. Section 8-9.4 of the revised charter, which pertains to
• . positions under civil service, as it applies to the administra-
tive head of the department of water supply and his first .
1
' 1s deputy is in conflict with HRS �" 54-14. since.HRS § 54-14
provides that the manager and chief engineer of each county •
board of water supply.who serves as administrative officer of l
t the board,shall be subject to HRS chapter 77, and his deputy
manager-engineer shall be subject to HRS.,.ehapters 76 and
i 77. Appellants also contend that this section of the revised .
, charter in its application to the administrative head of the -
•
• • department of liquor control and his first deputy is in Conflict
'tf'' with HRS § 281-17 (Supp. 1975). .. , .
1 3. Section 8-11.3 of the revised charter structures a board
of water supply of seven members appointed by the mayor of
the County of Maui with the approval of the Maui Council. .
• . plus two non-voting ex-officio members. It further provides
that one of such non-voting ex-officio members shall be the
. , i
• ..A
•
. i
t
. .
. •
..., .
. . • . .
. . . .
. • . .. ,
, .
. .
• . I . 1. . - . . • • •
• .
• . . .
. • - • -
. . . . •
, .
. .
. • II
. . .
. • .
. .
. • .
. . ,
• . •
, -
.:. '
4
. ..
SUPREME i(((.....lllllllltift:h(e)(741•IiirAt W A I 1-6 .' 1
. .
. . .
director of public works and the other shall be the planning 4
.
.1., - ..,:
• - - director of the County of Maui. This section, therefore, con-
flicts • . : I
• i .
. • I - with HRS § 54-12. %%hich provides that there shall be. • ' • •
4 1 ' • seven voting members. five of whom shall be appointed by the
. . mayor with the approval of the Maui Council, one of whom •
, . • '- shall be the chief engineer of the county and one of whom •
i l •
i I , shall be the state district engineer of the state department of • - ;
'
transportation.
n . .
- i
• 4. Section 8-11.4 of the revised charter sets forth a
. , 1 •
minimum qualification for appointment as director of the
. e
i
department of water supply which differs from FIRS § 54-14.
• ! , !,
. 1 . Under the charter's requirement, before one can qualify as a • : .. 1
• director of the department of water supply,he must have had 1
• ;- i• st
• • • five years training and experience in"a responsible adminis- i
. .
.
trative capacity, either in public service or private business,
1
. . or both. In contrast HRS § 54-14, requires that the director
! i
. i
• shall be an engineerduly registered under FIRS chapter 464. .
. , • i
. • . • Therefore, the charter section, to this extent, conflicts with
. . . i
HRS § 54-14. . • . 1
.. t
. .
. . . 5. Section 8-12.2 of the revised charter provides for a
police commission of seven members, with no restriction as. .. . :
: . to who may serve on the commission. This section is in
conflict with FIRS § 52-1. which restricts the police commis-
sion •
. . •
• .- in each county to five members, no more than three of . .
, J
• whom shall belong to the same political party-at the time of
• appointment. . .
. :
. • 6. Section 8-13.3 of the revises charter provides that
. ' ... ,
—
"The liquor control adjudication board shall hear and deter-
• mine all complaints regarding violations of the liquor control
- . laws of the State, or complaints regarding violations of rules
• i
and regulations established by the liquor control commis- .
. . i sion," and the liquor control adjudication board is authorized . 1 1
1
.
to "impose such fines or punishment as may be provided by
law upon the conviction thereof." It is claimed by appellants •
. .
. •
. • . that this section is in conflict with FIRS§ 281-17(Supp. 1975).. 1
which places this function in the liquor control commission. •
7. Section 8-13.4 of the revised charter provides that the • • . I
.:
• ' director of the department of liquor control shall have had a • . I
. .
- . . .
, . . . .
•
.. , . . .
1 . .
.. .
•
•
.
. .• . •
. .•
. .
. • .
. •
. .
- 1 • , . . ' ' .
. . •
•
. . .
. .
. . . .
. . . .
• ; ....
. . • . . .
. • . . .
•
. . •
. .
•
. 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
i
•
1..
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-8 1
., . . Opinion of the Court.
administrative structure and organization as these terms are 3
used in section 2, article•VII of the State Constitution, and 1
• that all of these mentioned athendments and provisions of the I. .1
revised charter are in direct conflict with state statutes on i
civil service, waterworks, police and liquor control, and are s
thus invalid.
I. •
•
I
i
Prior to the commencement of•this action, the entire
provisions of, including the revisions to, therevised charter i
• were submitted to and ratified by the people of Maui County '4
at the general election held on November 2. 1976.The validity 1
• and enforceability of these provisions including the revisions, .t
are herein tested against the applicable provisions of article
VII of the State Constitution and HRS § 50-15.
Article VII, section 5 of our State Constitution provides
- • that"This article shall not limit the power of the legislature to
enact laws of state-wide concern." HRS § 50-15 reads:
§ 50-15 Reserved powers. Notwithstanding the provi- • .
• •sions of this chapter, there is expressly reserved to the 1
. state legislature the power to enact all laws of general
application throughout the State on Matters of concern
• and interest and laws relating to the fiscal powers of the
counties, and neither a charter nor ordinances adopted l
under a charter shall be-in conflict-therewith.
• Our State Constitution becgme effective upon Hawaii's ,
•I "admission into the Union on August 29,-1959. It was amended i
4 .
once in 1968. Prior to its amendment,-article VII, the local' t
S government article, provided in section 2 thereof: "Each 1
political subdivision shall have power to frame and adopt a
• charter for its own self-government within such limits and
under such procedures as may be prescribed by law. -i
We stated in Fasi v. City and County, 50 Haw. 277, • I
283-84, 439 P.2d 206, 210 (1968):.
Y It is clear from the language of article VII, section 2, i
' and the foregoing account of its formulation in the con-
' ' vention,that a charter contemplated in the constitution is "'4
1
. . t
•
• - r r. • 1. ... "
• SUPREME,COURT OF HAWAII-9'
•
•
. Opinion of the Court
I.
no more than a statutory chartersTn to frame and adopt a
e constitution merely I
empowers each political subdivision
charter"within such limits and under such procedures'as 1
'' may be prescribed by law," thus leaving the scope of
local self-government to legislative control. There is,
however, one constitutional limitation in the exercise of
this control. That limitation is contained in article VII, f
• section 1 which provides: "Each political _subdivision ,
shall have and exercise such powers as shall be conferred
under general laws." Subject to this provision, the legis- • •1 • i
•
lature is free to enact any legislation affecting the powers t
- of political subdivisions. There is nothing in the constitu-
• sa s that the legislature may not amend a .i
Lion whichY
charter provision after a political subdivision has once t
adopted a charter. t
However, •
we rendered the Fasi opinion on March 25,' 1.
•
1968, before the convening on July 15, 1968 of the Constitu- E
•I -tional Convention of 1968. The Constitutional Convention of ' !
• • - 1968 recommended to the people of this Statethat section 2 of
. article VII be amended to read as follows: 1
. LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT: CHARTER .
•
t i
Section 2. Each political subdivision shall have power
to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government I
within such limits and under such procedures as may be
• prescribed by general law. Thee prescribed procedures,
. however, shall not require the approval of a charter by a
.. legislative body.
' Charter provisions • with • respect to a political . . 1 j
subdivision's executive, legislative and-.administrative . I 1I s
structure and organization shall be superior to statutory
provisions, subject to the authority of the legislature to
enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and •
functions. 1
A law may qualify as a general law even though it is
inapplicable to one or more counties by reason of the
'"` provisions of this section.
•
• The Constitutional Convention of 1968 further recom- '
•
r
i
•
•
SUPREME l:Ol.'f('I' OF HA
WAI
I
—IU
Opiniwe of theCourt .
. mendedthat the effective date of article VII, section 2, as
• be
•
amended. should not be.upon its ratifiication, but should
postponed fora period of three full years after its ratification.
• In accordance with the recommendation of the Convention
• the amendments to-arliele I-II, section 2 of the State Con- • 3
stitution and the provisions to delay the effective date of these
amendments as contained in article .
VI, section 9 were
ratified by the people in the general election held on . '
•
November 2, 1968. Thus. the amended article VII, section 2
became effective on January 1, 1972.Chikasuye v. Lota, 51 i
Haw. 443, 462 P.2d 192 (1969).
The Committee on Local Government had proposed the
• adoption of the amended version of article VII,section 2 after
•
it conducted public hearings and deliberated upon numerous
proposals submitted to it. In its Standing Committee Report e
No. 53 (majority), the Committee stated:
The principal change in this section is the protection
of certain charter provisions against amendment or re-
peal by the legislature.
In Fa.si, et al., v. City and County of Honolulu, et al., g
50 H. 277,the.Supreme held that a charter, even if ;
{ .
adopted under the Constitution as provided by.Article
• VII, Section 2, is no more than a statutory charter which
`• . • is subject to continuing legislative control. This proposal ; 4
;. will give a county charter a higher status within a pre-
i
scribed area. The designated provisions will become of r
• superior authority to a statute. . t
•
In prescribing the area within wi-ich a charter shall b.e • ,
M of superior authority to a statute the proposal is similar to. •
e
the model provision recommended by The American 't
Municipal Association. This model provision • was
adopted by South Dal:uta , at 1962. It
basis was the Hawaii
•
Proposal No. 241, introducedthe request of th
State Association of Counties. .
Your Committee omitted from the draft presented by
Proposal 241 the words "personnel" and "procedure."
I. The word "personnel' was omitted because your Com- .
•
I ; I • ' . inittee was convinced that the legislature should not be
• deprived of the power to enact, and maintain in effect, ,t
•
R
.
kSUPREME cotTwr OF HAWAII-11
a
' Opinion or the Court .
j
•
laws such as Act 188, S.L.H. 1961. Under the committee
proposal, no charter provision could supersede Act 188, -
• . , 1
•
I � S.L.H. 1961, unless the legislature,so provided. More-
ktoa
S
I
legislature of
the power -
over, any delegation by
•
y personnel matters will not be irrevocable.
serve the authority of statutes such as the Administrative
Procedure Act. therefore, the area i
i
As presented by your Committee,
which the proposal places beyond legislative control is
•
limited to charter provisions as to the executive, legisla-
I • Live and administrative structure and organization of the 1
•
z' political subdivision. For example, the legislature could
Inot 'change the composition of the legislative body of a
`� county. However, the proposal specifically preserves the
j authority of the legislature to enact general laws allocat-
- ing and reallocating powers and functions. This means .
i that the legislature could transfer a function from the
county to the state level even if the result would be to t
eliminate a department of the county government pro- F`
t
vided for inoits charter. i
• I Vol.IProceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii ]
4 of 1968; 229. ,
i • It is beyond que } t the y68 or
l Conven-
I tion delegates intenleatatcotcharters acquire a stature
1 which would resist legislative interference in certain areas.
Not only does the above-quoted committee report by the I
i1
Committee on Local Government but, additionally, the de-
bates in the Convention's Committee of the Wliole clearly
indicate that the thrust of the constitutional amendment,was
•
to give the charter certain basic stability against•Iegislative.
+ encroachment. In response to a question by Delegate
• Goemans,Delegate Ushijima.the chairman of the.Committee
.# , on Local Government, responded, "Well, I don't know what
1 your definition of sovereignty is. What we are doing here is to
. 1 give certain basic rights, constitutional rights to the charters,
to the various counties insofar as the enactment of their
• charter is concerned." Vol. II Proceedings of the Constitu-
tional Convention of Hawaii of 1968, 424. We are compelled
•
-
•
., asi�. s+r' ,r.�.: .0 . - � -
•
i
•
SUPREME COURT OF IIAWAII-12
• Opinion of the Court
•
•
to recognize that our decision in Fasi,supra, has been eroded .
- to the extent that it conflicts with article VII, section 2 of i . •
State Constitution as it was amended and ratified in 1968.
•. Even the appellants admit that charter provisions which
now relate to a political.subdivisions executive, legislative ;
and administrative structure and organization are entitled to .
a status superior to a statute.•Thus, all the provisions of
Maui's charter which were in effect on January 1, 1972 con-
cerning the structure and organization of executive, legisla- k •
' i . tive and administrative matters in Maui County government
took a different complexion under the provisions of article
VII, section 2. Similarly, those revised charter provisions
which were ratified at the 1976 election relating to govern-
mental structure and organization of the county are also t j
protected from legislative tampering. -
•
" R oral rule is that, if the words
t
he
en
a
t a
. th n
�a
re
,
aw [ ]
are
W
er _
vision .
are clear and unambigu
constitutional provision ,
used in a P
ous, they are to be construed as they are written."Spears v.
• Honda, 5.1 Haw. 1, 6,449 P.2d 130; 134,reh.denied, 51 H.aw.
103 (1968). Therefore, in construing the term structure and
organization.as used in the context of article VII, section 2
•
we adhere to. the well. established rule that "[i]n the
construction of a constitutional provision . . .the words of
the constitution are presumed to be used in their natural
•
•
sense . .
. `unless the context furnishes some ground to
control, qualify or enlarge [them]' "_' .
State v. Anderson, 56 Haw. 566, 577, 545 P.2d 1175, ,1182
(1976). These words were explained in.LaFleur v. City of •
4.
Baton Rouge, 124 So.2d 374. 378(La.App. 1960). as meaning .
"supervision, control and internal arrangement of the cc►m-
•
ponent parts of the mechanism or instrumentality.through 1
which the power(ability)conferred is exercised in obedience
to the function (duty) imposed.„. It was further held in that
case at 378, that power means "ability or capacity . . .
synonymous with inherent or basic authority to indulge in a
particular undertaking or provide or perform a certain ser-
• vice," and function means "duty in the sense that it is cotn •
-
plementary of the power (ability) conferred and, as such, is .1
s
•
.
.
. • ;. ,
. -
I.
f•- 1 SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-1313
, • Opinion of the Court e
f taken to mean onus or obligation to execute the power e
I granted." La Fleur concluded that the Louisiana statute .
1 Z fixing the salaries to be paid to firemen did not apply to .
l• firemen of the fire department of the City of Baton Rouge, 1
,. holding that "the question of pay of a fireman being a matter E
of structure and organization and distinguished from a
. power or function is reserved exclusively to [City of Batan '
" 124 So.2d at 379. The foregoing definition of i
Rouge] . .
structure and organization was approved by the Louisiana i
Supreme Court inLetellier•v.Jefferson Parish;254 La. 1067, '
•
229 So.2d 101(1969).3 We think that such an interpretation is
:• 1 ' .. . .
• compatible with the natural sense of these words.
. II.
The Second State Legislature passed Act 73 in 1963,
r the framing and adapting of charters by
i h rovided fo :, .
whc p
the counties. Act 73 has. been amended by Act 65, S.L.H.
1965, and by Act 235. S.L.H. 1967, and as so amended I
presently comprises HRS.chapter 50, constituting the enabl- .
ing statutory law on charter commissions.
HRS chapter 50 is a general law which authorizes the
I .
. , i • mayor of each county to appoint a charter commission of.
eleven members with the approval of the legislative body of
, the county:It further authorizes the charter commission after
the appointment of its members to organize, hold its first :
meeting and to adopt such rules and regulations.for the con-
', duct of its business as it may deem necessary and desirable.
•
The statutory provisions prescribing the ch Tter commis-
sions' duties and functions are set forth in HRS§ 50-6. which
' has not been amended since 1963. It provides that:
• The charter commission shall study.and analyze the exist-
ing governmental structure of the county for the. purpose
3These two rases were concerned with the application of the term structure and
•
. 11, organization as used in the Louisiana Constitution to the salaries of and pension • ;
-l• system for firemen of the local governments. In the present case under Standing
Committee Report No.53..cee supra at 10.personnel was deleted from the constitu-
•
tional proposal so that civil service and compensat• would not be included within ,
the area of structure and organization. ,
i I
{
fl
i .
SUPREME COURT t OF I1:1\\Alt-1•t, �
(11. .,n of thy Cuurl 4
h� • of securing information that will enable it to draft aunt f
cl
lirements of the c y
1 posed charter adaptc�el to the requirements
• 41 •'• and designed to provide for the people of the county, a
more efficient and responsible form of government. The 1
_ � study of any . J." governmentprop--
cub c c t re•le•vant to the ,
• 1 erty, or other affairs of the county, or of the laws relative 1
, , thereto, or of any matter or thing deemed by the commis
;i sion to be pertinent thereto. and consistent with the pur-
' which the commission was created, shall be ` 1
. pose for
•
deemed within the scope of the coinmission's work. If,
' • after its study, the commission decides that a charter is
l not desirable, it shall so report to the legislative body of f ,
the county and by resolu�ion all,f belldulvede V If. hoµe body of the ever,
county the commission h
the commission decides to draft a charterd the charter
shall set forth the structure of the county government,the '
manner in which it is to operate. the powers of the county 1 I
i
in local affairs, and shall provide fo.r orderly transition e t
government to government under the
from the present .�
charter. .�
The last paragraph of HRS § 50-10 provides,"Upon adop- i .
tion, the charter shall become the organic law of the county
and shall supersede any existing charter and all laws leb ars• e in 3
the oorganization and government of the county
. • •• conflict therewith." This language was contained in section
i j
- 11 of Act 73, S.L.H. 1963. the original enabling
•
It is clear to us that under HRS chapter 50, a charter t
commission is given broad powers necessary to formulate.a
i
charter for a county. In drafting such a charter the commis-
sion is required to delineate the structure of the county gov- i
ernment. In so acting it must necessarily enumerate the
powers and functions .of each county
rs department,withisuch bo rd,
' '• • commission and agency in local
t
limits prescribed by HRS § 50-6. Upon the adoption of the •
• charter, it shall become the organic law of the county super- '
seding any existing charter and all laws affecting the organi-
zation and government of the county which are in conflict
therewith. Of course, under FIRS § 50-15 the legislature has
t
- . ' • • . . . . • -I
•. . . 1
, . .
4.•••••inombadomal........20•
. . .
' .
1 . . .
, i • • 1
, .
. .
..1 SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-1S
• . .
. . I
Opinion of the Court .
. I , • . . 1
expressly reserved the power to enact all laws of general : 1
. 4
•
. . application throughout the State on matters of concern and
interest'and laws relating to the fiscal powers of the counties, --1
• consistent with article VII, sections 3 and 5 of the State
• .. , - • • Constitution.
. . . .1
. . . .1
- .
.• • Ht. . • 1
• •- • . .
The appellants contend that thecountycan exercise only ,
•
those powers delegated to it by the state legislature, and
. \ , because the revised charter provisions conflici with preemp- • . . 1
tive statutes, the charter provisions are invalid. Appellants
• •• it cite for support In re Anamizu, 52 Haw. 550, 481 P.2d 116 • .
•
(1971).Therein we said that counties may exercise only those , ,
. • ,
powers dele clearly gi natteedndteodt ht toemp r eb ey ngi epnt eariael laws;fieid0 wherefregulation,
the helegisla-
ture
4
ordi-
nances attempting to regulate the same subject matter are . • .
. , invalid. Herein we hold that the legislature duly delegated the
. administration of police, waterworks andliquor control mat- • -
ters, as hereinafter set forth, to the counties, thus satisfying .
. ' theAnamizu requirements. Further the rationale of Anarnizu
does not apply to the instant case because the legislature -I
foresaw that a charter commission could draft a charter
which would contain provisions conflicting with existing
laws. It was just for such a contingency that the last para-
graph of HRS §50-10 was designed so that the conflicting 1
statute would not invalidate any charter provisions which i
•
related to organization and governrnent„pf-,the county. The -
- 1
legislature 441 not intend to nullify these charter provisions
"affecting the organization or governmental structure" of . . •.'1
political subdivisions because of their conflict with existing * • I
statutes.See Salavea v. City and County, 55 Haw. 216. 219, 1
517 P.2d 51, 54 (1973): see generally Bloom v. City of .
1 1, Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 293 N.E.2d 268 (1973). This court
. i t .
. . • 11.
I
•0
• i 4The phrase Thu matters of Clincrrn and interest.'is the statutory language taken ' I
i
from HRS§50-15.We agree with appellants that this phrase should be interpreted to
• mean on matters of statewide vonvern and interest.
. .
, .
. i
. .
• .
• .
, .
. . i
. . .
, .
, .
, . •
.1 • • , . .
, •
. . .
. . • .........-.. . .
. . .
. -
. . •
• . .
, .
. '
. .
. .
. .
. . ,
. . .
. . . , . . . .. .
, . i
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-16
• Opinion of the Court
so stated in Castle v.Secretary of the Territory, 16 Haw. 769, 1 .
777-778 (1905):
�� We have only to decide whether any of its vital features
are so inconsistent with the Organic Act as to require the
inference that it is not authorized thereby. It is to be
• observed that tile -organization of counties with their. `
proper officers for attending to their own affairs necessar i
ily is inconsistent with all those laws of Hawaii relating to
such portions of the duties of Territorial officers as prop- I
erly are included in the duties and functions of county
officers. No County Act can be regarded as unauthorized
by the Organic Act by reason of such inconsistency. • 1
The appellants also cite Kurimoto v.Kawakami, 56 Haw.
' 582,545 P.2d 684(1976),for the proposition contained therein
that on functions of statewide interest and concern the politi-
cal subdivisions may not thwart the state's performance of its ;'
duties. However, the prohibition applies "if the counties are
not given specific authority to take over the function," 56 t
Haw. at 585, 545 P.2d at 686, which is dearly not the case E
t : here.
Iv. I
We must recognize that the fundamental principle in con-
struing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the inten- 1
.. j ; + tion of the framers and the people adopting it. Whitman v. . I.
National Bank of Oxford, 176 U.S. 559 (-1900); State ex rel.
Dade County v.Dickinson, 230 So.`d 130(Fla. 1969); Wall v. t
. \ -rison, 201 Kan, 598, 443 P.2d 266`f1.968). It has been
• ' '''hat in construing a particular constitutional provision,
sought to he accomplished and the evils sought to • t a
• \ •hould be kept in mind by the courts. State ex
v. Dickinson, supra. With these views in
-ed each of the challenged provisions of
harter. • i l
se\.1....4, 'sed charter provides for a de-
zati�? consist of a board of water sup-
there ,artment of water supply and the ,
•
. . . .
• • •
• • • • ,
.----
. . • .. ... . • .. • • . . . . . .. . ,.. . . . ,.. ' . . ,•
. „. • .
. . .
• , - • . ,
. . • .
. . .
•
, I • .
. .
. .
. .
. • . ,
.T . .
. . .
• ..
. . .
e .
•
• . • SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-17 .
. . . .
. .
• .
. .
. . Opinion of the Court • . • •
. ,
. .
. .. . '
: ;1, • . . . . . ,
necessary staff. Section 8-11.3 provides for the composition
. .
. .
and membership of the board of water supply and-the powers ,
of such board, all of which substantially differ from those
. . .. .
provided by FIRS chapter 54. The board under the revised •, .. . • . '
. .
charter is not an autonomous agency and the waterworks . . :.
•, . .
• thereunder is in fact to be managed by the mayor and council.
. • _
Under section 8-11.4, the per of appointing and removing • - $:
. .
She director of the department of water supply would be . .
. . !• .
. • placed in the mayor rather than as previously in the board.
. .
- .• The revised charter creates under section 8-13.3 a liquor . . .
5
control adjudication boardwhich is given the exclusive
power to hear and decide all complaints regarding violations
. . .
., . of the liquor laws as well as rules and regulations established • . I .:'
by the liquor control commission.6 The'adjudication board is
also given the power to punish offenders as provided by law. • •.
• The appellants allege that these provisions shift the power .-.
. .
• • from one board to another board or to the mayor and council
. . . .
• -• . . - and violate the rule- of law that a power delegated by the
•
•
legislature to a specific body or position within the political . . .
•
subdivision may not be removed to another body or position.
• State ex rel. Gutherie v. City of Richland, 80 Wash.2d 382, . ... .
. . 494 P.2d 990 (1972); Logan v. Two Rivers, 222 Wis. 89, 267
. .
• • N.W. 36 (1936). However, these cases do not apply to the
• .. instant situation. Both amendment 40 to article XI, section 10
•
• of the Washington State Constitution and article II, section 3
•
•
. . of the Wisconsin State Constitution, the constitutional provi-
sions on municipalities relevant to Gutherie and Logan, re-
,
• spectively, do not contain municipal structure-and organiza-
••
. 1 1
• •
..•
• , . - -
. •
6 Such a board of three members was initially created under the charter which i •
took effect January 2, 1969. The revised charter increased its membership to five
members. ,
; . .' • . °Appellants'contention that revised charter sections 8-13.4 and 13-2.14 prohibit
. .
1 the liquor control commission and its members from investigating complaints re-
. .
garding violations of state liquor laws and the commission's rules and regulations is • •.
•4t
• erroneous. Revised charter section 13-2.14 provides an exception Where interfer- i
• encc with the administrative affairs of the department is otherwise provided for by I
law.!IRS§ 281-17(9)(Supp. 1975)is the law providing investigatory powers to the
li
liquor control commission or its members.
•
. :
• .
. . . •
. -
.. .
. •
. . ,
, . . .
1 . . .
•
. . . ; .
.
• 1 .
. t
. .
• ,
. 1 . • .
. .
.
. . . .
• •
. .
• . :
. .
. ,
•
- . , • . ,
. .
. • . . •
• •
. . • '
• - '
.._;-
"
•
A ,�.,r'......�.� _�
i
t(k
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-18
•
Opinion of the Court
ti
tion superiority clauses. Such a provision as contained in
article VII,section 2 of our State Constitution allows a county
in this state through its charter to redelegate to another
. appropriate local officer or body a power originally delegated i
by the legislature to another body. 2,'llcQuillan on Municipal ;
Corporations, .3d ed., 618, section'9.03.
• One of the duties and functions of the County of Maui
upon its creation in 1905 was to acquire, establish and main- } 1
•
• tain a public water system and to furnish domestic water to its t
inhabitants:Sec Act 39, S.L.H. 1905. Maui County operated
such a water system until 1949, when the structure and e
•
• organization of that unit was modified by the legislature 1 • .
which created for the county under Act 289, S.L.H. 1949, an
•
autonomous board of water supply. We would treat and re- t
PP Y 1
l • • gard such an agency as performing a local function as distin- 1
. guished from state function. In 1955, the legislature repealed.
i Act 289, S.L.-H. 1949, and abolished the autonomous county
I. •
• board of water supply.See Act 201, S.L.H. 1955. Six years
later in 1961, the legislature enacted Act 155, S.L.H. 1961,
which has been codified as HRS chapter 54. This chapter
• restored to Maui county an autonomous board of water sup-
ply. It is our opinion that a county charter commission is •
empowered to study the waterworks of a county as a depart- i
' merit of the county government. A provision was contained in
' the bill (H.B. 18) which became Act 73, S.L.H. 1963. that
would have prevented the charter commission from consider •
-
ing and recommending the establishment of autonomous
. agencies, such as the 'Maui board orf Water supply. However,
• such a provision was deleted in the Sena. See Hawaii Sen-
' ate Journal 1963. 2d Leg. Gen. Sess. S:C.Rep. 67 at 704. •. '
y
• There is nothing in the enabling act which prevents the char- •
ter commissions from studying and analyzing such a local ,
function and. to recommend for adoption a department of
water supply designed ti, meet the needs of the locality.
Further, we agree with the legislature that the regulation
of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating li-
- quer within a county is a local concern. The Senate Commit-
tee on Judiciary stated with respect to S.B. No. 11, which •
r I .
•
l
. . \ . .. .
SUPREME (:OuItT OF 11A\VAI1-19 •
I
Opinion of the Court •
` became Act 172. S.L.H. 1963, relating to county liquor corn- 4
4 mission: i
Your Committee after due deliberation and consider-
ation has come to the conclusion that control of the con-
sumption of alcoholic beverages is a local rather than a t 1
state function. Therefore. since the administration of and t 1
the responsibility for the control of liquor functions should 1
be with the various counties,the members of the commis1 1
-
sion should be appointed by and be responsive to the
respective county executive officers. •1.
! :
1 Hawaii Senate Journal 1963, 2d Leg. Gen. Sess. S.C. Rep.
•101at715.
Accordingly, we conclude that sections 8-11.3 and 8-11.4, l
as well as section 8-13.3, all relate to executive and adminis- i
trative structure and organization of the county government
and.are superior to statutory provisions.
Likewise, we are of the opinion that police function is not I
,i a matter of statewide concern. In connection with the passage $
of Act 176, S.L.H. 1963 under which the legislature transfer- 1.
'i1.
red to the counties the power of appointment of the police t
commission members, the Senate Committee on Judiciary
1 stated:
The author of the Report [Public Administration Service]
: \
•and almost all of the people who testified expressed the 1 .
opinion that the functions carried out by the various
• police commissions were primarily and basically of local .1
concern. On this basis, they reeorn- ended that the
power of appointment of members of tire-various police
1i1- commissions be transferred from the state level to the
• county level in order that the commissioners would be
1 more responsive to local demands. I 1
r Hawaii Senate Journal 1963. 2d Leg. Gen. Sess., S.C.Rep. i
100 at 715. The publication by Public Administration Service 4
entitled "State and Local Government Relationships in the
• State of Hawaii" stated at 82:
1,!I Police protection is a local governmental function.
. Local governments pass on the budgets and provide all
financial support. Locally elected officials should have
1
••
i
.
ry
s r.a- SI
4,
. i • . .
I
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-20
Opinion of thr Court
tIt
t
the responsibility for•police administration. A charter •�
amendment should be obtained to assign to the Mayor of ' •. '
1 Honolulu the authority to appoint the police chief with l
•
1 advice and consent of the Council. lit the other counties,
power to appoint police chiefs should be assigned to chief I
executive officers under the reorganized form of govern- r
1 merit discussed in-the succeeding chapter.
1 .. It is clear to us from the above-quoted legislative report
and the publication to which it referred that the power over t
police matters was. delegated to the counties. The revised
charter provision changing the number of members serving •
on the Maui police commission is a matter of executive and
r administrative structure and organization and is superior•to
conflicting statute.' Similarly, the revised charter section
• 8-12.3 which restricts the police commission's power to re-
move the chief of police is valid as against conflicting provi-
• cions in HRS § 52-34. ,
. I • - Moreover,we hold that the Maui charter provisions which
. j require qualifications for the positions of directors of the t
d• epartments of liquor control and water supply are superior `.
I to statute. The issue of who shall fill departmental head +
positions created by the charter commission is a matter of
• executive and administrative structure and organization,see 1
Del Duca v.Town Administrator of Methuen, —Mass. —, • `: .$
329 N.E.2d 748 (19741, which the State Constitution makes I
superior-to statute. It is also apparent that such an appointee iI
. also serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority. !
• The-language of HRS §281-17 (Suhp._1975) provides that
• the secretary of the liquor comtITission and the other em- • i 1
ployees of that commission shall be meriThers of the civil ser- , i
• ' vice and be subject to the compensation law. Since the char- ! i
ter provisions gave the liquor control unit of the govc-rntnent a4
t
. structure with departmental standing. it is reasonable that i
• the director of the department of liquor control he subject to t
•
7 Revibtrd charter seetion 13-2.2 requires that"[nlot more than a bare majority of •
•
tile members of any board or commission shall belong to the same political party." 1
• t
•
1
• SUPREME.COURT OF HAWAII-21 •
Opinion of the Court
• I .
certain'ininimum qualifications for his appointment, like '
•
every other department head of the county.
All of the challenged provisions of the revised charter
relative to the departments of water supply. police and liquor
control are found valid and enforceable: We hold that these
provisions relate directly to the organization and government
of the County of Maui. and. under HRS § 50-10, they super-
•
sede all laws of the State on the same subject in•conflict k
therewith. Because the conflicting statutes are, not of1
statewide concern or affect the fiscal powers of the county,
the provisions of the revised charter are not invalid under
article VII of the State Constitution and HRS § 50-15.
However, the constitutional protection afforded county 1
• governments against legislative intrusion is far from total.:
The constitutional amendments made to article VII. on local ' 1
. government, did not grant to the political subdivisions corn-•
_ • j. , plete home rule; such amendments, as appellants state, only 4 1
gave the local governments limited freedom from legislative
control.
Thus, we hold that these amendments do not enable a
.` political subdivision to adopt provisions in its charter which
tee repugnant to existing or future laws in the areas.of person-
. • nel and procedure which were stricken by the Committee on
\ . Local Government from the proposal finally adopted by the
i
people. ' While the.framers of the State C�i?st-itution did pro- 1
vide in article VII, section 2'that "[cliarter provisions with • I 1
respect to a political subdivision's ex ecutive` 7egislative and i a
administrative structure and organization shall lie superior to .
statutory provisions.subject to the authority of the legislature 7
\I to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and :
;� functions."they also provided in section 5 that"[t]his article i ,
1 •°shall not limit the power of the legislature to enact laws of E a
6.
state- wide concern." From an examination of the framers'_�
iStanding Committee Report No. 53 (majority), we think it is
clear that they intended the final authority on all civil service j i,,
V.. , ,,,�u.._.,w,....c..,.........._.,,....-....�-w--.+cam..-. ...._,i..-..�.a..,.......o. •
_ •_•�,,,,,>,,.,,., r..p..�
F. 7
..�.. - �. rm 1
'i ,. .
SUPREME COURT OF IIAWAIL-22 1
Opinion of the Court f
and compensation matters to remain with the legislature.The_j
it • committee report refers to"personnel" and "personnel mat-
.1 . ters," and these words and phrases should be given their
literal and ordinarily accepted meaning unless the context
indicates otherwise. State v. Anderson, supra. "The term
'personnel matters' is given no peculiar limited meaning...
• State v. Hernandez, 89 N.M. 698. 699. 566 I'.2d 1174. 1175
•
. (1976). In this sense the term refers to and embraces both
IIRS chapters 76 and 77 in Their entirety.
That the framers considered such matters to be of state-
•wide concern and used the terms "personnel" and "per- '
sonnel matters" in their broadest sense is further evidenced `. i
_i, , by the debates of the Committee of. the Whole on Local i a
l Government: f
1 DELEGATE USHIJIA•IA [Chairman of Standing
Committee]: Well, Section 2 is the charter provision. We
have by our action given certain areas constitutional right • 1
insofar as charter provisions are concerned. and that is in
the field of executive, legislative, administrative strut-.
lure and organization.l think the conrnrittee report is very a
. clear as to the reasons why- we left out procedure and
personnel. TT"e have had lots of witnesses who testified that
•
insofar as personnel matters arc concerned, we should
r retain it on a statewide level and retain the philosophy of
Act 188 which is presently in force. [Vol. II. Proceedings -
1 of the Constitutional•Convention of Hawaii of 1968, at
•1 422.] (Emphasis added) ,
}
ik
Act 188 to which the committed report and Delegate Ushi-
, jima referred, and given by the framers as an example of
personnel-oriented laws exempted from the operation of Sec-
tion 2, is a statute of state-wide application on both the
• administrative and policy levels. The act defines the func-
1 • tions of the civil service commission with respect to the
i compensation law. It also provides for the creation of a State i
. i appeal board to hear appeals arising under the compensation •.
law. The cost of its operations is borne by the State. Its
membership is composed of one civil service commission
member from each jurisdiction who is appointed by the gov-
$
SUPREME (:GIRT OF ft.AR'AII-23
Opinion of the• Court .
;';'] ernor to the appeal board. It seems to us obvious from these .
•f t - provisions that the statute necessarily contemplated the con- i
tinued existence and functioning of the civil service commis-
t - sions as provided by general law.• ••
We need not discuss in depth the policy considerations
underlying civil service and_compcnsation laws. The merit
system has become an established policy of government.This
has been a policy of state-wide application. Uniformity in the
t success. 1Io
How well ,
S L• toits 4• , administration of the. law is essential ial
the system works and whether its ultimate objectives are to
•
• be achieved depends in relevant part upon the manner in
, i
•
which the laws pertaining to it are administered. Accord-
1 ingly, a civil service commission member by statute must be +•
one "who believe[s] in applying merit principles to public t
• employment." HRS § 76-72. The personnel director must be j
one who "believe[s] in applying merit principles and scien-
tific administrative methods to public personnel administra-
tion." HRS § 76-75. There is no valid reason to suppose that
the authors of article VII, sections 2 and 5, having expressed i
their conviction "that the legislature should not he deprived ,
of the power to enact, and maintain in effect,laws such as Act
188," and having determined that "any delegation by the [
. legislature of power as•to personnel matters will not be ir- E . 1
revocable," have nevertheless seen fit.to deprive the legisla-
ture of the authority to determine the administrative means EE
gi • o fives in these areas ma best be f
c � vc 1) c"C Y
whicn it le i_latt
. i by E
achieved. All indications point to the contrary. . 6
t Accordingly, we unci that there is a fatal conflict in the I 1
Ji charter provisions in chapters 2 and 3 of the revised charter . 1
4 relative to the staff of the corporation counsel and the pro- 1
+ secuting attorney other than the deputy corporation cot.uisels
t and the deputy prosecuting attorneys. Sections 8-2.4 and !
{ 8-3.2 of the revised charter provide that the staff other than ' i
these deputies shall be exempt from civil service. We find •I
that these conflicts in chapters 2 and 3 of the revised charter
+'= with respect to the staff of the corporation counsel and the
• . i
prosecuting attorney and any conflict in the provision of the
first paragraph of section 8-9.4 of the revised charter with •
. I s
It 9
! t
1
r
• .
i .
•
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-24
Opinion of the Court
1 '
HRS § 76-77 would render the revised charter provisions
- 1
1 nugatory.Any inconsistency between chapter 9,of article 8 of 1
the revised charter and Part III of HRS chapter 76 would ;
•1' ; ,:► . result in the latter prevailing. We have been sustained in this
4 view when the legislature enacted in the last session H.B. No. 4
• 3i1353, which became 1III
Act 61. S.L.H. 1977, effective May 7.
1977. We take cognizance of the proposition that where legis-
1 i
. lative construction of a constitutional amendment is reason-
• able, the courts will ordinarily follow the legislative construe- 21
tion.Vandegrift u.Board ofSupervisors ofCoun.t}•ofButte, 23
Cal.App.3d 235, 100 Cal.Rptr. 87(1972):Thus,the personnel
•ii! ' director may not be appointed and removed from office by the 1'
mayor as provided for in revised charter section 8-93. ij.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I
Yukio Naito (Shins, Sigal, Tarn & Naito of counsel) for i
Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Paul Devens, Special Counsel(Paul R. Manci.ni., Corpo-
ration Counsel, with him on the brief),. for Defenda_ nts- {,
i.
Appellees.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION OF KIDWELL,J.
f4
The caseload of this court imposes a significant restraint t
on the writing of extended separate opinions. and especially t
• on one which would explore the mysteries of judicial interpre-
• tation of statutes and constitutions. Tn..this instance. I will i I
express my reasons for, not signing the majority opinion as t
brief!y as is consistent with traditions courtesy.a of-judicial { i
1 agree that state statutes prevail over the provisions of the
Maui charter in every instance where the majority so con- i
provisions of Chapter r 13of
the troy t_ion,. L7
eluded. I would also hold that I 1
the Maui charter are similarly subject to the provisions of . I
• Chapter 281. Hawaii Revised Statutes. Although I depart J
from the result of the majority opinion only in this respect. I `1
reach my conclusion by.a materially different process from
that of the majority. 1 4
1
• SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-25
Opinion of the Court
••
Article VII, Section 2 of the 1968 Constitution grants to
each county authority by its charter to determine its "execu-
tive, legislative and administrative structure and organiza-
. tion."This authority cannot be broader than the basic author-
i . • ity of the county to adopt a charter, which is confined to '
matters which are"for its own s.elf-government."The powers I .1
• granted to the counties by Section 2 of Article VII are, by
Section 5, made subject to the power of the legislature to
enact laws of state-wide concern. It seems quite apparent
•
that Article VII reflects an assumption that matters relating
• to county self-government are not of statewide concern, and •i
that• matters of state-wide concern do not pertain to county
self-government. .
•
Upon its adoption in 1968, Article VII cut across an exist-
{ ing body of statutes which prescribed both the structure and
organization of county governments and the powers and func-
r } . tions of county officials and departments. The laws which
• they administered reflected, in varying degrees, elements of
i local concern and of state=wide concern. Article VII compel-
led a sorting out process, to which the legislature seems not •j
have given any significant amount of attention. The present 3
1 case requires that we participate in the sorting out process. 1
! • In my view, the essential difference between matters
. 1 which pertain to county self-government and those which are
I
of state-wide concern lies in whether the choices which a
county makes are of significance only to the people of the
county or are also of significance to the people_of the state
who do not reside in the county. Under tI'iis test, a county •
74
charter has constitutional superiority over stare. law with
i • respect to the administrative structure and organization r ,1
which deals with those matters which are not of significance 1
to the rest of the state. This over-simplification undoubtedly
t ' conceals great difficulties in the.application of the test, but I
am satisfied that, with the exception mentioned above, the
results reached by the majority opinion satisfy the test.
Thus, I agree that the various charter provisions which • •i
4 ( prevail over state law under the majority opinion are part of
• the structure and organization of county self-government.
.
i
__._._._.._.-..--__o,,.-_.
i
1
si . . . . • •
t -1
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII-26 11
Opinion of the Court ,
Also, in my view, the application of the state civil service and ••
•
• compensation laws (Chapters 76 and 77, HRS) to indi
vidual county officers and employees, and the designation,
qualifications, powers and functions of the officials who ad-
minister those laws, are matters of state-wide concern. Al- i
though given the. labels-of county officers. the officers em-
powered by Part III of Chapter 76 and Part II of Chapter 77 to .1
• administer these state statutes in each of the counties exer-
cise the functions of state officers and a change by a county in 4
the administrative structure contemplated by the state sta- t
tute could frustrate its purpose. For that reason, I concur in ••
j the conclusion of the majority that charter provisions which. d
I \ are in conflict with Chapters 76 and 77 must bow to state law. )
The officers designated by Chapter281,HRS,to adminis- • , �
ter the state liquor control law are, in my view, in relation- i
ships with the state and the county-which are not distinguish- •
able in material respects from those of the county civil service
I • officers. Notwithstanding the powers granted to the county • t
• liquor commissions to issue nonuniform regulations with re- -
i ' spect to matters left to their discretion by Chapter 281, the t i
1 ' policies to be implemented by such regulations are to be
1 ; found in Chapter 281 rather than in county ordinances. i i
i , Equally with respect to the civil service law, the compensa- t •
I , tion law and the liquor control law, the administration of the
a state law in each of the counties is a matter of state-wide
concern which would be subject to frustration if the designa- F •1
tion, qualifications, powers and functions of the officials
. named in the state statutes were nofsubject to state control.
to the extent to which the state chooses icj exercise control. .
i • • Equally in each instance, therefore, these officials are part of • E
-.� state government rather than county self-government in the i
sense in which I have attempted to reconcile the provisions of l
Article \'II. t
The majority opinion differentiates between civil service
• and liquor control, and concludes that the regulation of the ,,
manufacture. importation and sale of intoxicating liquor 1
within a county is a local concern", solely upon the authority •
of a report of the Senate Committee on Judiciary in 1963. l 1
•
.
• y 9
SUPREME•
•
COURT OF HAWAII-27
,
! •
•
Opinion of the court
,,
relating to the statutory delegation to the county executive
i'j, :, officers of authority to appoint the members of county liquor i
i commissions. Yet the fact that the legislature followed the }
same policy in delegating the appointment of county civil i
• i I service commissions to the county executive officers does not I
deter the majority from concluding that the civil service law i
t • prevails over charter provisions. The legislation to which the i -
t. I committee report pertained did not, in my view, make liquor
' control a function of county self-government. The • t
legislature's intent to retain this governmental function to the
state, as it did the administration of the civil service and
icompensation laws, is to be found in' the legislation as
i enacted. Our task in this case is to examine that legislation in i
t the context of Article VII of the 1968 Constitution. What was
i • said in a legislative committee report in 1963, without refer- •1
ence to or knowledge of the concept of county self-gov-
1
ernment created by the 1968 Constitution, seems to me do 1
have little weight in the present inquiry. In relying so exclu- .1
. i sively on that committee report and failing to examine the ,
administrative structure which the liquor control law pro- !
vides, the majority opinion fails to sustain its conclusion. {
• Accordingly,I concur in the manner in which the majority I
Opinion adjudicates this controversy, except for the determi- t '.
nation that any of the provisions of Chapter 13 of the charter
i
prevail over the provisions of Chapter 281, HRSi as to which I I would reach the opposite conclusion.
3v'' i
1
iti" i
i
J
t
1 .f
i
I
i i t
1417)
' DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL. SERVICES
COUNTY OF HAWAII
Civil Service Commission
7 Members .
Director of Personnel Services I
•
'Deputy Director of Personnel Services
1 Personnel Management-Labor Relations , Administration-Employment Services ] I Personnel Development
Personnel Spec. III SR
.M mt -24 M Spec. Personnel Mgmt. Spec. II SR-21
HC 2749 9 �. 'Personnel
mt. II SR-21NC 51 g [Personnel
2466
Recruitment
Examinations Transactions
I 1
Personnel Clerk II Personnel Assistant SR-17 Clerical Assistance
HC 2159 SR-15� �HC 52 from Clerical Center
IPersonnel Clerk I SR-13 I Student Help
• 1HC 2750
•
Notest All work to be processed through
Administration-Employment Services Div. .
Work priority will be assigned by this •
division®
Rev. 1/79
: $ •
:DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES ' ,
Ln-t ^r
AP4iNISTRAT1O.I thet!.e lire^rcr Pr.so,acZ
Advises .'•:a•.ot and
e1., Functions - - • ,e
Functional Organization Chart Services on prcbieas eoncrrr.in' personnel nel a_-inistrati,cn; -',p
n1s
ters de art
.advises and assists the C.ircctor in fosterin" the 1
Directs and administers P r d " +v' -O
_ _ -e . •u to^s o. lesrnin and o. civic.. .es-
- ._ i ',interest o^ in^a. t F
•v sea the Mayor on.:, ,
'mental programs; nS i sinr.al and ernlnpee orraricat!ons in the improvement o. '
andnprovide psecretal aand adoini5- nersonnel standards; hears i.nreals; '-eseribes ru.es and
and provides secretarial and adminis-
'trative services to the Civil Service _ ',regulations to carry out the provisions of the County. 1
pIML AL/AD':INI.TRATIVF EERViCFS teas on ... Charter. (Charter, County of Hawaii, 1968, Article VII.)' .
6 • administers ro
Commission; t;
_ � ssi n P
C
otwal
rIPA, Manpower_Planning, Legislation.
Provided throuvh assignments by ertlers
Personnel Management S,ecinliet. Positions
- Appointed 1:y 1•iayor"with approval of the'.Council
1 ,Director of Fersonnel Service
s
1�•, Deputy rector f P rsona 1,.
Services
,
PFRSOltiFL MAtiA'FI!F.FlT LABOR S .
tN7AGf:'_I' 6�S:PfAYFF FhTIONS i CIASSIF] ATIOAtp vit.::., ... FTL1YMF!TiFRVICF .; PFa:;(i ;FL 7FVF1
A^r p
1
-Provides technical personnel advice Dcvelons ana d maintains. the clnssifi Plana, directs and evaluates-the Coordirater County-vide t-ninln,
• . end assistance to management personnel. cntion and ray plana.: County's recruitment end examination net.ivitiea,
-Coordinates and administers personnel _ prro;rn!s• ' -Organises and protides technical e2r.- • r
rrograc+c on employee assistance and • C1ar.nificnl.lon.: -Conducts personnel certification and, .. rultet!oa on •nplo:ee tr''••'re r-'-ri"r.
• P
roccssin+. activities; maintains I evelors rind ^.i-rd�+rt.c t. ir..e,' _-ser.. ,
,services. - c
Coordinates the development and inter- _iir•veloes end maintnina the monition ,County r.1r3onnel rceords, files and' Entnblicher r-orrr--, to .dentl`:• 'rsin-
rctation ofpersonnel licies, rules' statistics in' nerds e.f c-nlnyee.s and drsi-n1.
p PP classificaLton tion.
and regulations.: : -Ccnduets audits cf pcsitioas or units t-linin" nrcrrnns to bele -est identi-
of positions and clnssifirc accordir.� Peeruitment: - find needs, :noir--r.ts trr.inlr.- 'rr i
D------ -- Assistance {l
•�- " Lo eatabliz;`trJ Enacts. -Publicizes examinations and employ- dcvrlozrent e^ rY.il's and Y.reti•]rd�•e
assist _ maintains s ecif!cations ' mrnt opportunities to the community ranuired; .cvn!ua'•s e-r:nyee rer'orr
advice and rind maim P.
1 ria^cs P
- technicalPr .. �"�
-Provides ,.
..s c^
e effectiveness-rip eif.c
ence
to dr.,c.
r.. � employees.
n
arcs on rr.rsrnnel matters to depart- of cla....c., of positions. and rncloy c -
mental officials. Corduats research in cJ.nesificntlon, • -Issues, receives and screens applica- training. 1
-Evaluates the effectiveness of depart- prnctices. tions. - - Devclo-a nod conduct: sn ernlnyce-
mestal rerlonnel:nroPrams. :. orientation, T•rr-r••Sire-.rat p-�era:a,
Coordinates central`:servicea,to depart- Coneensation . Exn.•nination and other special orotraes as recuired
nents on personnel matters crossing - -• -Plans, ccnstructs,'adcdnistcrs and for County e"ployees.
orranizattonal line. • -Conducts research on community pa', evnluntee exnm!nntlnns.'
rates. -Audits positions for examination.,
• Persnr.cl knn: ---77777-77-777
-- nt 7-77-one Evaluates classes of positions and 1
purposes. ' +
-Co .,ct1 studies'and research projects er•si's to appropriate level of salary Revlo::s and comments on class '
• relatinr•to County-wide personnel or vane schedule, specifications, particularly rcnuirei.-
manarenent•- -•' •' -Participates in periodic pricing' meats for mployment. • i
Evaluates and develops programs design- reviews of classes to achieve uniform- _Conder-Conducts rr.aenrch on examinatiun.
ea to promote effective•employee- �• ity in pay plans with other public 1,
management relations. { jurisdictions. Cr-rtlficutl_n,_Trnnsnclicns and
-Develo^s and maintains personnel t Records: !
▪?, mol cies, standards and guidelines for, > , - efer .
-Maintains employment lists; r e
employees and manarenent.--- - lieioles ger Jeb vacancies. - .
e
Labor Rel attonsr Atnii ts, prernrra and procesaea all i i
' - • . . arpolntrents and rericonnel msvc:acnta. .11 i
-Participates in collective bargaining -Maintains personnel records, files
ne-otiatlens as members of the County's • _• and statistics. - t
nero'tiatin? team. _-. l 7.'., i
Administers the prorran of contract,
' a-.inistration by coordinating; contract -. . Federal Programs: +
.*.
ierlcentntion. , i
-Advises and assists departmental - -FEOC
• cani:ers sri supervisors on the -Affirmative Action - `''` i
errlicatien and interpretation of
nc:otinted agreements, personnel laws,
rule's, ard.policies, in resolving
labor-taatetrement problems
',!
LFt Research Rervtces:
Aetearchea,' develaps and maintains
ecercaic, ecmpensation, and related
cost data in support of collective
•
1
bargaining negotiations and Special
• pp
w:r.i,naei inwrrtws demelot:ment - _ •.:. ;,.'. ,.:-. • , ',-