violate the “merit principle” pursuant to HRS § 76-1. 3. PSD’s suspension policy was not a “rule” subject to HAPA’s rule-making requirements. Appellants argue that PSD improperly promulgated a “rule” in violation of HAPA, HRS §§ 91-1 et seq. (2012 Repl.), when it implemented its unwritten suspension policy in 2006. In general, “[a] state agency must conform to the requirements of HAPA when acting in a rule-making capacity.” Rose v. Oba, 68 Haw. 422, 425, 717 P.2d 1029, 1031 (1986). HRS § 91-1(4) Os and only applies to PSD’s internal promotion decisions. The suspension policy is, therefore, purely an “internal management” function that does not affect the “private rights of or procedures available to the public.” See Waugh v. Univ. of Hawai‘i, 63 Haw. 117, 131, 621 P.2d 957, 968 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Because PSD’s suspension policy is not a
holding question of what constitutes proper care and education of children is area of public concern recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding that the area of concern raised by appellant is exempted from public rulemaking procedures because the rules of practice which appellant claims the university should be required to promulgate would affect only the staff and faculty of the university and not the private rights of or procedures available to the public holding that the plaintiffs speech was not a matter of public concern because it did not bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of the defendant and others