HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0604.054 1996-1998 JNiV or N,~ i
o.• -
" 6i)g;
Stephen K. Yamashiro ~ Richard Wurdeman
Mayor ~ Corporation Counsel
h~ef of.M'.p~J
C~nixn#g of ~ttfuttii
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
I OI Aupuni Streee, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4262 • (808) 961-8251 • Fax (808) 961-8622
24 September 1998
TO: DOMINIC YAGONG, Councilmember
Hawaii County Council
FROM: RICHARD D. WURDEMAN
Corporation Counsel
SUBJECT: CHANGING RESOLUTION TITLES
This is a reply to your oral request of September 21, 1998, on the question of whether or not the
title to a resolution could be changed by amendment to a existing resolution proposal, or whether
the whole process need be restarted.
On May I, 1998, the Mayor forwazded to the Council, Resolution 267-98, which was entitled
"Resolution Presenting a Plan of Disposition for the Former Hamakua Sugaz Co., Ltd., lands
under County Ownership". The gist of that proposal was that County lands in Hamakua would
be exchanged on an equal value basis for lands that would enhance and improve existing public
facilities. Drag 3 of that resolution was placed on the floor last week. That Draft requested that
a new plan be developed which would satisfy other needs, in addition to the enhancement of
public facilities. That resolution was retitled "Resolution Requesting the Mayor to submit a
Revised Plan of Disposition for the Former Hamakua Sugar Company Inc., Lands now under
County Ownership". It is arguable that such a change was needed, but the retitled resolution was
passed out of committee and sent to the full Council for final action.
Section 3-10(b) of the Hawaii County Charter requires that ordinances shall embrace but one
subject and that that subject be expressed in the title. Section 3-10(d) prohibits a Bill from being
amended to change its original purpose. We have, in the past, advised the Council that these two
provisions, when read together, prohibit the amendment of Ordinance titles.
Resolutions, on the other hand, are much less formal actions, and do not have the force and effect
of law; even if they are what the Council Rules describe as "Legislative Like". Hawaii County
Council Rules of Procedure, Rule 26.1(b) (1997). (vo~lf
'r~.._._ r.~......~_-.
, . ^ Pressntecf ~pwY?t~
IX;T ~ T 1998
t,r;z...,___._._.__
Dominic Yagong, Councilmember
24 September 1998
Page 2
Resolutions have even been upheld when they had no title at all, but were merely oral motions to
authorize executive action. Foster v. Citv of St. Anthony, 841 P.2d. 413 (Idaho 1992). We
conclude, therefore, that there is nothing in the County Charter prohibiting the amendment of
resolution titles.
This is not dispositive of the matter, however, Chapter 92-7(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes
requires that notice be given for all Council meetings, and that this notice include all items to be
considered at the forthcoming meeting. Changes to the agenda which aze of reasonably major
importance must be continued to another reasonable day and time. HRS § 92-7(d).
A change to the title of an agendized resolution inherently necessitates a change of agenda.
Therefore, if the matter is of reasonable importance, it must be continued to another meeting.
In conclusion, if the Council found it necessary to change the title to the subject resolution, a
determination should have been made as to its importance and effect on significant numbers of
people, and if that determination was positive, it should have been re-agendized for consideration
at a subsequent meeting.
RDW:brel
resotitles