HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0953.006 1996-1998
Stephen K Yammhi,v RiJ1acJ Wurclernau
Mole' : ~ , epenri.m Coumd
GunfV of PttGrttii
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
101 Aupual Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Ha"i'i 96,7:0.4;63 . 19149) %1.8357 . Fvz WA) 961-86:2
9 June 1998 ,or 411r,
Data__--
County Coundi ; '
TO: CURTIS TYLER
Hawaii County Council/
FROM: RICHARD D. WURDEMAN y
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 procelures anu
details to implement this section.
This section has been the source of some controversy over Llu+
years, in that the council has never Formulated the pro~:eduLt:.s
and details necessary to implement the section. This
controversy has centered not around major programs such as solid
waste, but around an activity that may not qualify as a program,
aerial marijuana eradication.
A lawsuit, Robinette 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 :harter
provision was not self-executing, and that the manner in which
it is executed is a political question, not to be disturbed by
the Courts.
06
0001M. Na. 6153.
Me No. Usj~~
Ref. 1`cl P?
Ref. DWe-ZSEP
Curtis Tyler, Hawaii County Ccc.:nc-l
9 June 1998
Page 2
When this question has been raisers 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 letter of the law, it does not
satisfy the spirit. gee Rule 24, council 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, The MBA-'_;5 aictionarv, Reston Pub. Co.,
Reston, Va (1983).
One author has described the methodology to be followed as
consisting of seven steps:
1. Identification of the fundamental governmental objectives,
2. Selection of 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,
6. Consideration of the major uncertainties involved,
7. Display of the costs and effectiveness of each alternative
in a form understandable to the decision makers.
Harry P. Hatry, "Overview of Modern Program Analysis
Characteristics and Techniques," Urban institute R rin
(Washington, D. C., Urban Institute, 1970), P. 39.
In view of the fact that the Director of Finance estimates that
there are probably close to 200 pLOgrams 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 impossible
to meet with the present or reasonably expected resources of the
county.
Accordingly, it is recommended that consideration is given to an
ordinance of reasonable expectations, which would establish
procedures within present capacity to implement the Charter
requirement.
RDW:1882Lbre