HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0314.081 1996-1998 4
l 6
Stephen IG Yamashiro
- ' '
Mapa. R)JIatJ Wurdernau
• ~ Ce.gora Nm~ Cw mef
r
f~iitt'~ h~ai r~
KLIIII2T~~1 U~ ~tlflYtlTi
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
t01 Aupuu7 Street, Sulte 325 • Hila, Hsai'i Pri i. ~-17d7 . 197ut) %t-8257. Fzz IROR) 9h1-&:2
9 June 1998
--~--1&'~
- r,- r.
County Council ~
To: cuRT25 TYLER
Hawaii County Council
FROM: RICHARD D, WUADEMAN~
Corporation Counsel
SUBJECT: PROGRAM REVIEW
In your memorandum Of April 23, 1998, you asked for an
interpretation of Hawaii County Charter Section 3-16. That
section requires that:
At least once every four years, the Council shall critically
review every program supported wholly or partially by County
funds, and unless the Council shall favorably authorize its
.continuation at current or modified levels, the program
shall be terminated. The Council shall adopt proce3ures an4
details to implement this section,
This section has been the source of some controversy over tLt:,
years, in that the council has never formulated the pro~edure.s
and details necessary to implement the section. This
controversy has centered not around major programs such as suliti
waste, but around an activity that may not qualify as a program,
aerial marijuana eradication.
A lawsuit, Rob'nette v. Arakaki et al, Civ. No. 94-34, sought to
raise this issue in the Third Circuit Court, but was dismissed
in 1994, after the County successfully argued that the charter
provision was not self-executing, and that the manner in which
it is executed is a political question, not to be distu7Ued by
the Courts.
eo.a, Nw 3 g ~
INe Ne. V S G
t~ Presente7
Ital. Date. 1 ~
Curtis Tyler, Hawaii County Cocuc;.1
9 June 1998 ~
Page 2
When this question has been raised in the past, this office has
given the opinion that a satisfactory program review is
essentially what the Council says it is, and that while the
current practice of deeming the budget review process as a
program review may meet the lett:or of the law, it does not
satisfy the spirit. See Rule 24, Cvuncil Rules of Procedure.
A program review or program evaluation, while it may be part of
a management audit, is distinguishable from a management audit
because, while the audit focuses on internal efficiency, and
evaluation deals with effectiveness and relevance. In other
words, does the program impact the problem, and is the problem
really a problem. Oran, ~t~,MFSA'g ],Zictionarv, Reston Pub. Co.,
Reston, Va (1983).
One author has described the methodology to be followed as
consisting of seven steps:
1. Identificatipn of the fundamental governmental objectives,
2. Selection ?f evaluation criteria,
3. Development of alternative ways to attempt to meet the
objectives,
4. Estimation of the full cost implications of each alternative,
5. Estimation of the effectiveness of each alternative,
fi. Consideration of the major uncertainties involved,
7. Display of the costs and effectiveness of each alternative
in a form understandable to ttie decision makers.
Harry P. Hatry, "Overwiew of Modern Program Analysis
Characteristics and Techniques," Urban Institute R rin
(Wa~hinaton, D. C Urban Ins_t,itute, 1970), n. 39.
in view of the fact that the Director of Finance estimates that
there are probably close to 200 liivgrams currently in the county
budget, and that simple arithmetic therefore leads to the
conclusion that to review each prugram once every four years, a
separate program review would need to be generated in almost a
weekly basis; the ambitious intent of the Charter is irt.possible
to meet with the present or reasonably expected resources of the
County.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Consideration i5 given to an
ordinance of reasonable eapectati.uns, which would estak~lish
procedures within present capar.ity to implement the Charter
requirement.
RDW:1882Lbre