Opinion ID: 2512446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Continuation In Office By The Six Regents Whose Terms Expired Contravenes Act 56, Sections 1 And 5.

Text: The terms of regents Bender, Dahilig, de la Pena, Hapai, Lagareta, and Tatibouet expired on June 30, 2008 pursuant to Act 56, Sections 1 and 5. Thus, pursuant to Act 56, Section 1, [a]s each term expire[d], the regent will be replaced by an appointed member screened and proposed by the [CAC]. The CAC's list of screened and proposed regent candidates, presented to respondent on February 21, 2008, included candidates to replace the six regents whose terms expired on June 30, 2008. Respondent acknowledged that the terms of six regents expired on June 30, 2008 pursuant to Act 56, Sections 1 and 5. Rather than nominating replacement regents from the CAC's candidate list in accordance with Section 1 of Act 56, respondent solicited and obtained holdover agreements with these six regents on June 20, 2008. The holdovers, according to respondent, were authorized by HRS § 304A-104(a) (Supp.2007). HRS § 304A-104(a) provides that [e]very [BOR] member may serve beyond the expiration date of the member's term of appointment until the member's successor has been appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate in accordance with article X, section 6 of the state constitution. Respondent contended that this statutory provision (the holdover provision) explicitly authorized the holdovers of the six regents whose terms expired on June 30, 2008. We disagree. It is well settled that this court's foremost obligation in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 117 Hawai`i 439, 447, 184 P.3d 191, 199 (2008) (citation omitted). Act 56, Section 5 provided that [n]otwithstanding the requirements of [HRS] section 304A-104, as it read prior the effective date of this Act, the terms of the five regents whose terms expired on June 30, 2007 would expire on June 30, 2008. HRS § 304A-104as it read prior to the May 1, 2007 effective date of Act 56contained the holdover provision invoked by respondent for the continuation in office by the six regents. We construe Act 56, Section 5's notwithstanding clause to except the holdover provision of HRS § 304A-104(a) as to the five regentsBender, Dahilig, Hapai, Lagareta, and Tatibouetto whom Section 5 of Act 56 applies. Such construction effectuates the legislature's intent-plainly stated in Section 1 of Act 56that [a]s each [existing regent's] term expires, the regent will be replaced by an appointed member screened and proposed by the [CAC]. Respondent contended at oral argument that Section 5 of Act 56 speaks only to [the regents's] terms, and, therefore, Section 5's notwithstanding clause does not refer to the holdover provision, but refers instead to the provision of HRS § 304A-104, as it read prior to May 1, 2007, that regents serve four-year terms. Section 5 speaks about regents's terms as to the extension and expiration of those terms. Though Section 5 can be construed as referencing the four-year term provision, it can equally be construed as referencing the holdover provision. Construing Section 5's notwithstanding clause which applies to the requirements of HRS § 304A-104, as it read prior to May 1, 2007 as exclusively referencing the four-year term provision is not rational and sensible. Excepting the holdover provision of HRS § 304A-104(a) as to regent de la Pena also effectuates the legislature's stated intent that de la Pena, an existing regent when Act 56 was effected, be replaced, when his term expired on June 30, 2008, by an appointed regent screened and proposed by the CAC. We hold that respondent's application of the holdover provision of HRS § 304A-104(a) to regent de la Pena and to regents Bender, Dahilig, Hapai, Lagareta, and Tatibouet contravenes Act 56, Sections 1 and 5. Application of the holdover provision to those six regents is contrary to the modified appointment process for regents prescribed by the Hawai`i Constitution, article X, section 6. [3]