City and County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi
| Decision Date | 17 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 9459,9459 |
| Parties | CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; County of Hawaii; County of Maui; County of Kauai; Eileen R. Anderson; Andrew I.T. Chang; Lawrence Koseki; Marilyn Whiting; Stanley H.L. Lum; Stanley T. Shiraki; Robert N. Kumasaka; Roy H. Tanji; William F. Remular; Wallace Y. Kunioka; Gary M. Slovin; Stanley D. Suyat; Francis J. Santos; Benjamin Fukumoto; Peter D. Leong; Donald Y. Asao; Melvin M. Nonaka; Thomas C. Blondin; Willard T. Chow; Ralph Portmore; Dr. Anna Maria Brault; Dorothy K. Ono; Francis Keala; Harold Falk; Joseph Conant; Charles K. Torigoe; Sharon Narimatsu; Michael M. McElroy; Robert B. Jones; Dr. Charles B. Odom; Dr. Richard Y.K. Wong; Marsha Petersen; Robert K. Masuda; Sam Carl; Charles F. Marsland, Jr.; Paul Toyozaki; Michael J. Chun; William A. Bonnet; Aaron D. Mahi; Roy A. Parker; and Dail Rhee, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. Governor George R. ARIYOSHI, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. Arthur E. ROSS, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. STATE of Hawaii; and Governor George R. Ariyoshi, in his capacity as Governor, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The crucial inquiry into the issue of standing is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his implication of the court's jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.
Where restraints imposed by a statute act directly on an individual and a claim of specific present objective harm is presented, standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute exists.
Every enactment of the legislature carries a presumption of constitutionality and should be upheld by the courts unless it has been shown to be, beyond all reasonable doubt, in violation of the constitution.
The fundamental principle in construing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting it.
In construing a constitutional provision the court may look to the object sought to be established and the matters sought to be remedied along with the history of the times and state of being when the constitutional provision was adopted.
The constitutional protection afforded county governments against legislative intrusion is far from total. The constitutional amendments made to article VII, on local government, granted to political subdivisions only limited freedom from legislative control, not complete home rule.
The final authority on all civil service and compensation matters remains with the legislature.
Under article VIII, section 2 of the state constitution, provisions of a charter or ordinance of a political subdivision of the state will be held superior to legislative enactments if the charter provisions relate to a county government's executive, legislative or administrative structure and organization.
Personnel matters, including civil service and compensation matters, remain subject to legislative control.
Act 129, Session Laws of Hawaii 1982, was designed to alleviate problems such as conflicts of interest and lack of an equitable, integrated, and reasonable overall statewide compensation structure for state and county officers and employees, according to levels of duties, responsibilities or functions.
Section 34 of Act 129, Session Laws of Hawaii 1982, provides a schedule of integrated, equitable, and reasonable salaries Compensation of county officials is a matter of statewide concern where a salary structure integrated with that of the state structure will provide for more efficient and effective government for the people of Hawaii. It is a matter within legislative control and does not intrude upon the executive, legislative or administrative structure or organization of the counties.
among top-level officers of all jurisdictions that is necessary to provide for more efficient and effective government.
Charlene M. Aina, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees Ariyoshi, et al.
Francis M. Nakamoto, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Honolulu, for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants City and County, et al.
Arthur E. Ross, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu , for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant Ross.
Before LUM, C.J., NAKAMURA, PADGETT and HAYASHI, JJ., and JAMES S. BURNS, C.J., of Intermediate Court of Appeals, in place of WAKATSUKI, J., recused.
This is an appeal taken from a grant of summary judgment by the lower court which declared sections 34 and 34A of Act 129, Session Laws of Hawaii 1982, unconstitutional, but upheld the constitutionality of section 35 of the Act. We reverse the decision because the enactment of sections 34 and 34A is a proper exercise of the legislature's function to control matters of statewide concern. The question of the validity of section 35 is thereby mooted.
Act 129, Session Laws of Hawaii 1982, was enacted on March 27, 1982, and was entitled "A Bill for an Act Relating to the Compensation of Public Officers and Employees and Making an Appropriation Therefor." Section 34 of Part IV of the Act, codified into Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 46-21.5, prohibited increases of salaries to county officers and employees exempt from civil service.
Section 34A of Part IV of the Act, codified into HRS § 78-18.3, prohibited any salary increases of certain public officers whose salary was directly or indirectly dependent upon the public sector's collective bargaining process.
Section 35 of Part IV of the Act, codified as caveats to HRS §§ 46-21.5 and 78-18.3, required counties to return to the State any salary increases made from grants-in-aid from the State if sections 34 and 34A were deemed invalid for any reason by a court.
The counties and the local public executives filed a complaint for declaratory judgment (Civil No. 72604) in circuit court on August 2, 1982, challenging the legality and constitutionality of Part IV of Act 129. Arthur E. Ross, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, filed a similar action (Civil No. 72605) on the same day, and the two actions were eventually consolidated on November 30, 1982. A motion and cross-motion for summary judgment were filed with the court and were both partially granted on May 19, 1983. The court below declared sections 34 and 34A "void, invalid and unenforceable and in violation of county self-government and 'home rule' protected by article VIII, section 2," of the state constitution and found section 35 to be constitutionally valid. Record, Vol. II at 284.
Article VII (now article VIII), section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii was amended in 1968 to grant "home rule" to the counties. The provision reads:
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT; CHARTER
SECTION 2. Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be provided by general Charter provisions with respect to a political subdivision's executive, legislative and administrative structure and organization shall be superior to statutory provisions, subject to the authority of the legislature to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and functions.
law. Such procedures, however, shall not require the approval of a charter by a legislative body.
A law may qualify as a general law even though it is inapplicable to one or more counties by reason of the provisions of this section.
Under this provision, the framers granted counties the power to enact ordinances concerning the "structure and organization" of the county governments. These ordinances are to be superior to conflicting state statutes, but subject to the power of the legislature to enact "general laws allocating and reallocating powers and functions." Id.
Regardless of the meaning attached to these phrases, the power of the legislature to enact laws of statewide concern was not limited by section 2. Article VIII, section 6 of our state constitution provides:
STATEWIDE LAWS
SECTION 6. This article shall not limit the power of the legislature to enact laws of statewide concern.
In order to give effect to section 6, the power of the legislature to enact laws of statewide concern regarding local self-government cannot be diminished.
The legislature enacted HRS Chapter 89 in 1970 to allow public employees to use collective bargaining but excluded executive officers therefrom. Under article VIII, the counties established ordinances to create pay rates for their executive officers.
The legislature in 1982 enacted HRS § 46-21.5 (section 34 of Act 129) which states:
[§ 46-21.5] Prohibition on increase of salaries of certain county officers and employees. The salary of a city and county or county officer or employee of the executive branch who is:
(1) Exempt from civil service by section 76-77(1), but whose salary is or becomes at least equal to or more than the salary of the head of any department of the city or county under which employed; or
(2) Exempt from civil service by § 76-77(2);
shall not be increased after June 30, 1982.
Sections 76-77(1) and (2) govern the status of the mayor, elected officers, heads of departments and other managers and supervisors. 1
The legislature also enacted HRS § 78-18.3 (section 34A of Act 129) which provides:
[§ 78-18.3] Prohibition on certain increases in salaries for certain state and county officers or employees. Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, neither the State nor any of the counties shall provide or pay to the following state or county officers or employees any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaho`Ohanohano v. State
...state of being when the constitutional provision was adopted.'" Id. at 225, 140 P.3d at 1005 (quoting City & County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67 Haw. 412, 419, 689 P.2d 757, 763 (1984) (citation omitted)). "[W]here it is alleged that the legislature has acted unconstitutionally, this court h......
-
76 Hawai'i 46, Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu
...it did not repeal section 6[,] which reserves matters of statewide concern to the legislature."); City and County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67 Haw. 412, 416, 689 P.2d 757, 761 (1984) ("In order to give effect to section 6, the power of the legislature to enact laws of statewide concern canno......
-
State v. Armitage
...to penal liability pursuant to HAR § 13–261–10, they have "a claim of specific present objective harm", City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67 Haw. 412, 419, 689 P.2d 757, 765 (1984), and therefore have standing to challenge the constitutionality of that regulation, (4) Art. XII, section ......
-
Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners
...along with the history of the times and state of being when the constitutional provision was adopted." City & County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67 Haw. 412, 419, 689 P.2d 757, 763 (1984) (citing State v. Kahlbaun, 64 Haw. 197, 638 P.2d 309 (1981)). Moreover, this court has stated that "a cons......