Opinion ID: 1258959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Violation of HAPA

Text: Finally, Crosby asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that Circular 1977-3 is not subject to the strictures of HAPA. [19] COL 7 states that Circular 1977-3 is not a rule or regulation, but is merely a guideline and is not subject to the provisions of [HAPA]. The trial court's FOF 96, which is substantially supported in the record, states that: Circular 1977-3 is simply a guideline by the [DAGS] to the other department heads in the State of Hawai[']i, as to how the [DAGS] interprets Section 103-22, H.R.S., insofar as the sole source issue is concerned. Circular 1977-3 does not bind any member of the public nor any public employee with respect to any substantive right that may be inferred under Section 103-22, H.R.S. Rather, it is simply an internal guideline that the Comptroller may ignore or not. Further, the Government may also ignore it. (Emphasis added.) Circular 1977-3 was sent only to other state agencies and does not command or prohibit any action by any member of the public or any public employee. See Doe v. Chang, 58 Haw. 94, 96, 564 P.2d 1271, 1273 (1977) (holding that agency manual, which did not command the public to do anything, prohibit the public from doing anything or declare the rights of the public in any respect [nor] make any procedures available to the public[,] was not a rule or regulation under HAPA). By the clear language of HRS § 91-1(4), therefore, HAPA does not apply and COL 7 is not wrong.