Laserfiche WebLink
MR. SILVA: Yes. But the point, I'm making is that <br /> you cannot put anything in the charter that' s contrary to statute. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Getting back to this section right <br /> here now, this does not solve your particular -- you' re looking at <br /> having it written in as it is with the police commission that the <br /> police chief will take charge of the training, etc. ? <br /> MR. SILVA: Yes. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: And this portion here that makes one <br /> of your major duties, the personnel training or the personnel <br /> development which does not take in the training, spell it out <br /> sufficiently? <br /> MR. SILVA: It does. But my concern is you cannot <br /> have anything in the charter which would be contrary to the statutes. <br /> And right now it' s vague. If they can actually improve that pro- <br /> vision in the charter. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: What you' re saying is that this <br /> particular provision here in the charter is in conflict. <br /> MR. SILVA: Yes, it could be in conflict. It could <br /> be. It has never gone to court. Other issues have gone to court <br /> and the charter provisions have not held up. But the essential <br /> thing to remember is that, any charter provision contrary to the <br /> statute -- and I might say that this is only in personnel services, <br /> and when you have a chance and you look at the Supreme Court <br /> Decision, you' ll see it -- anycharterprovision contraryto the <br /> statute is invalid. So what I did with my proposals is to insureL' <br /> that there would be no conflict. This is the reason why we say <br /> that the commission and the department will be established and <br /> function according to statutes. There' s no conflict. <br /> MaybeIIcan read just one section of the case. Let' s just refer <br /> to it as the Maui Case. This was a statement from Delegate Ushijima, <br /> John Ushijima was a delegate at that State Constitutional Convention <br /> and they quoted him. It says, "Delegate Ushijima, Chairman of <br /> Standing Committee: Well, Section 2 is the charter provision, <br /> (Charter 2 of the State Constitution) . We have by our action given <br /> certain areas constitutional right insofar as charter provisions <br /> are concerned, and that is in the field of executive, legislative, <br /> administrative structure and organization. " Now, this is the key. <br /> "I think the committee report is very clear as to the reasons why <br /> we left out procedure and personnel. We have had lots of witnesses <br /> who testified that insofar as personnel matters are concerned, we <br /> should retain it on a statewide level and retain the philosophy <br /> of Act 188 which is presently in force. " So in other words, what <br /> they' re saying is that the personnel laws are general laws of <br /> statewide concern. And there can be no provision contrary to <br /> these laws. Come to the conclusion in this particular case, it <br /> says, "Any inconsistency between Chapter 9, of Article 8 of the <br /> revised charter, " our charter -- but we are talking about the <br /> Maui case but the principle is the same -- "Part III of HRS, Chapter <br /> 76, would result in the latter prevailing. " So, personnel apparently <br /> is one area where the legislature has said, well, we' re reserving <br /> this power. We don' t want anybody else doing anything in this area. <br /> - 26 - <br />