HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1142.007 2014-2016 Cam M. 1142
Murashige, Laura
From: Levi Hookano <levi@hookanolaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony in Opposition to Bill 254
Attachments: Testimony on Bill 254.pdf
Dear Council Services Staff,
Attached please find my testimony in opposition to Bill 254. Mahalo.
Levi
Law Office of Levi K. Hookano, LLC i
www.hookanolaw.com -14.46"
PO Box 2687r
Honolulu, HI 96803
808-600-4332
domm. No.
Ref. To: ' 1(0V4-
Ref. Date NOV 1. 6 2016
1
Law Office of Levi K. Hookano, LLC
P.O. Box 2687 www.hookanolaw.com 808.600.4332
Honolulu, HI 96803 levi@hookanolaw.com
November 8, 2016
Re: Testimony in Opposition to Bill 254: Relating to the Office of the Corporation
Counsel
Dear Chair Kanuha and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
This letter is in opposition to Bill 254 and I strongly urge the County Council to
disapprove this Bill. While I am a friend of many of the attorneys in the Office of
the Corporation Council and I understand the desire to protect their jobs, the
County Council does not have the authority to legislate in this area, and the
effects of this bill would be detrimental to the County as a whole as legislation
should be passed with consideration for its long term effects, and not based on
impulse.
Primarily Bill 254 is in violation of the County Charter. Additionally, if this bill is
passed, it would create a property interest in the position for deputy corporation
counsel attorneys and will result in costly litigation for the County.
This Bill is in Direct Violation of the County Charter, Section 6-5.6 and the County
Council Does Not Have the Authority to Legislate Such Provisions
This Bill, as worded, is outside the scope of the Council's authority and is in
violation of the County Charter. First, the County Council is the legislative and
policy making body of the County. It is not charged with administering the human
resources and civil service laws of the County, nor the employment decisions of
the Office of Corporation Counsel. That authority is vested, by Charter, in the
Department of Human Resources, the Merit Appeals Board, and the Department
Heads of the various executive agencies.
Additionally, Section 6-5.6 of the County Charter states that: "[n]otwithstanding
Section 13-8, the term of office of the corporation counsel, assistant corporation
counsel and deputies shall be co-terminous with that of the mayor..."
[Emphasis added]. The County Council does not have the authority to legislate
the terms of deputy corporation counsel attorneys per the clear and
unambiguous terms of the County Charter.
The only way for the County Council to accomplish these terms is through a
Charter Amendment.
1 oft
This Bill Will Create a Property Interest in the Position of Deputy Corporation
Counsel, Requiring Due Process
If Bill 254 is approved by the County Council, it would provide for due process
rights for a deputy corporation counsel, by ordinance. This gives the attorney an
opportunity for notice and a hearing when faced with the possibility of
termination. The deputy would no longer be an "at-will" or "exempt" employee
and this would likely implicate civil service laws and result in litigation if a deputy
is dissatisfied with the result of the hearing.
It is Reasonably Foreseeable that this Bill Will Result in Costly Litigation for the
County
When a position has due process rights attached to it, contested hearings on
employment are sure to follow. The Merit Appeals Board normally handles such
cases, and now the County Council will be taking on that roll for the deputy
corporation counsels. First, this authority is not authorized by the Charter as
stated above, which vests the legislative and policy making formulation in the
County Council. Termination hearings, by their very nature, are contentious. A
dissatisfied party will undoubtedly file suit in court resulting in time and expense
for the County to defend its decision.
Bill 254 also makes no mention of how current deputy corporation counsel
attorneys are to be handled. Are the current attorneys grandfathered in? Or will
they all now be subject to confirmation by the Council? Regardless, this process
will not be easy, and anyone unhappy with the decision will likely file a lawsuit.
Conclusion: Do Not Pass Bill 254
For the reasons above, I strongly urge the County Council to disapprove Bill 254.
Levi K. Hookano, Esq.
2 of 2