HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0437.002 2004-2006 BOB ?ACOBSON vv a. ~ Phone No.: (808) 961-8263
Council Member ;o Fax No.: (808) 961-8912
E-Mail: Jacobs@hgea.org
rt Y.'M'~'
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
County of Hawai 'i
//nwui'i County Huilding _
25: fupuni Streel, Suite 209
lIi(n, /lawa~'i 96720 ~ '
September 16, 2005
TO: Chair Stacy Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council
FROM: Bob Jacobson, Council Member
RE: Resolution 168-05
Resolution 168-05 proposes to initiate an audit of a program. The claimed basis of the
need for this audit is Communication 402, "Evaluation of the Department of
Environmental Management's Implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan."
Communication 402 has never been on an agenda of the Council or any of the
Council's committees, has never been filed by this Council or any of the Council's
committees, and has not been cited in any Committee Reports.
According to the County of Hawaii Council Record System (COReS), Communication
402 was "presented" to the Finance Committee, not "transmitted", as indicated in
Resolution 168, to the Council.
Furthermore, in direct contradiction of and blatant disregard for procedures established
by the Council, through the County Clerk, this communication was numbered after the
committee meeting to which it was "presented" (but never filed). In fact, the
Communication was time-stamped as received August 23, 2005 -eight days after
Resolution 168-05 alleges the Communication was "transmitted to the Council."
The so-called evaluation report, referred to in Resolution 168, has no credibility:
? because of the mendacious intent of its initiation;
? because of the suspect means by which it was procured;
? because of the biased method by which it was prepared; and
? because of the fickle manner by which it has been introduced into Council proceedings.
Within the scope of the proposed audit of the recycling and diversion grants program, is
a "review of the bidding process, contract award, monitoring process and oversight
requirements" of contracts. Ironically -indeed, hypocritically -this audit is called for on
the basis of a document that has never been exposed to scrutiny of the same scope.
Comm. No. / 37. 2-
Ref. Tofr~g~nrfwd~
District 6 -Upper Puna, Ka'u, and Soulh Kona Ref. Uata ,~2
~ ~nn~
Hawai County !s An Equal Opportunity Pravider And Employer
September 16, 2005
Page 2
The discredited so-called evaluation report notwithstanding, is an audit of the County of
Hawaii recycling and diversion grants program justified on legitimate grounds? If so,
why is an audit of the recycling and diversion grants program needed more than an
audit of other government functions, such as council contractor procurement and
expenditures for inter-island travel?
This Council, the Administration, and the people of this County deserve to know why the
so-called evaluation report was prepared, how it was paid for, and who approved the
contract and payment.
Specifically, the following questions must be answered truthfully and in entirety,
regarding the derivation of "Evaluation of the Department of Environmental
Management's Implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan":
1. What was the explicit written objective of the contract?
2. What was the written scope of work in the contract?
3. What written and oral instructions were given to the contracted author?
4. Under what authority was the contract initiated and implemented?
5. For what purpose did the Council appropriate the funds that paid the contract?
I will not be supporting Resolution 168-05. Like the false document that it claims as its
justification, Resolution 168-05 lacks credibility.
Bob Ja son
Coun~i ember
2