Restoring Ethics, Transparency, and Independent Oversight in Maui County Government
(Expanded companion piece to the petition at https://c.org/KwP4SkNWNY)
INTRODUCTION
In 2024, the people of Maui County voted for change. Their message was clear: the public no longer trusted a Board of Ethics that was legally and structurally dependent on the very department it was supposed to oversee — the Department of the Corporation Counsel. The voters approved a Charter amendment creating a new model: an Ethics Board with its own independent legal counsel, free from the influence of Corporation Counsel and empowered to conduct fair, impartial investigations.
One year later, the implementation of that amendment has stalled. The patterns that motivated voters to create independence remain firmly in place. Conflicted attorneys continue to direct proceedings. Key complaints are being dismissed without proper process. Executive sessions continue to include attorneys who should not be there. Sunshine Law concerns are now being investigated by the State Office of Information Practices (OIP). And the County Auditor — one of the most important oversight roles in the county — remains enmeshed in conflicts that have not been reviewed by the Ethics Board.
This document provides the full background, legal context, and detailed analysis of the systemic problems now facing Maui County’s ethics framework. It supports the petition calling for transparency, independence, and compliance with the Charter that the voters enacted.
I. THE CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 2024: WHAT VOTERS INTENDED
When voters approved the Charter amendment, the purpose was explicit:
-
Remove Corporation Counsel from advising the Board of Ethics
-
Create a new Executive Director/Legal Counsel who is independent
-
Ensure ethics complaints are evaluated without political pressure
-
Protect whistleblowers and public complainants
-
Break longstanding patterns of internal legal conflicts
The amendment states that the Board of Ethics may use Corporation Counsel for administrative purposes, but shall have independent legal counsel for ethics matters. The intent was unmistakable: for the first time, the Ethics Board would no longer be subordinate to the office it might need to investigate.
II. EARLY WARNING SIGNS: CORPORATION COUNSEL KEPT ITS SEAT AT THE TABLE
Despite the Charter revision, Corporation Counsel has continued to:
-
Sit in on Ethics Board executive sessions
-
Provide legal opinions on matters involving its own office
-
Shape procedural rules that govern public participation
-
Block or influence ethics complaints involving county attorneys
This contradicts the purpose and structure of the Charter amendment, even though the amendment’s language uses “may” rather than “shall.” The word “may” was intended to preserve administrative flexibility — not to permit Corporation Counsel to continue shaping investigations into its own conduct.
III. NEW ETHICS BOARD RULES: A “GAG ORDER” AND PROCEDURAL BARRIERS
In early 2025, the Ethics Board proposed and adopted new rules which included:
-
A prohibition on complainants discussing their own complaints publicly
-
Restrictions on participation in public meetings
-
Procedural bars that were not required by the Charter
Civil liberties experts quickly pointed out that a rule preventing citizens from discussing their own ethics complaints is inconsistent with free expression and public transparency requirements under Hawaiʻi’s Sunshine Law.
The new rules had the effect — intentional or not — of discouraging public participation and shielding the Board from scrutiny at a moment when public trust is already strained.
IV. OIP BEGINS FORMAL INVESTIGATION
The State Office of Information Practices has opened an investigation (OIP Appeal 26‑19) into:
-
A potentially unlawful executive session
-
Whether conflicted attorneys were improperly present
-
Whether agendas or minutes were withheld or altered
-
Whether the public was misled or improperly denied access to information
OIP has requested:
-
Unaltered agendas
-
Open‑session recordings
-
Executive‑session minutes and recordings for in camera review
The presence of conflicted counsel in an executive session directly undermines the legal basis for holding the session, since attorney‑client privilege cannot exist when the attorney has a conflict of interest.
V. THE COUNTY AUDITOR: PROFESSIONAL FAILURES AND LEGAL CONFLICTS
The County Auditor is required under Government Auditing Standards (“Yellow Book”) to undergo a peer review every three years. The Auditor has not completed a peer review since 2018, which violates the standards for government auditing independence.
Because the Auditor examines internal county operations — including Corporation Counsel and land‑use compliance — this failure is significant.
Compounding the issue:
-
The Auditor retained private counsel in his personal capacity
-
That private counsel had prior involvement in deferral agreements and development approvals linked to the matters under audit
-
The County Council approved $150,000 in taxpayer funds to hire KS&G as outside counsel to defend the Auditor, despite conflicts and without Ethics Board review
This is the exact type of conflict the Ethics Board is responsible for reviewing.
VI. THE ROLE OF THE ETHICS DIRECTOR: A HEIGHTENED DUTY AS A LICENSED ATTORNEY
The Charter requires that the Ethics Board’s Executive Director/Legal Counsel be a licensed attorney. With that status comes mandatory responsibilities under the Hawaiʻi Rules of Professional Conduct.
HRPC Rule 8.3 — Duty to Report Misconduct
Any attorney who receives credible evidence that another attorney has engaged in serious misconduct must report it to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
Director Akitake:
-
Has received clear, documented evidence of potential attorney misconduct
-
Has declined to forward that information to ODC
-
Has dismissed complaints in ways that appear to favor Corporation Counsel
-
Has used her position to block public involvement and shield internal actors
This failure undermines the reason the Charter required her position to be filled by an attorney in the first place.
VII. THE KS&G APPOINTMENT: A FAILURE TO SEEK A REQUIRED CONFLICT OPINION
When Corporation Counsel determined it could not defend the County in the Chris Salem lawsuit — because its own actions were implicated — it hired the private law firm KS&G to represent the County.
However:
-
Corporation Counsel did not seek a conflict‑of‑interest opinion from the Ethics Board
-
It proceeded to select KS&G without public oversight
-
Nearly $1 million has now been spent, according to public reporting
-
The Ethics Board played no role in approving or reviewing the conflict determination
This was a missed mandatory step under the Charter.
VIII. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN QUESTION: WHO WAS IN THE ROOM, AND WHY IT MATTERS
One of the most concerning events was an executive session in which:
-
Corporation Counsel attorney Caleb Rowe participated despite his office’s admitted conflict
-
Outside attorney David Nakamura appeared and offered legal conclusions
-
Nakamura was not properly procured to represent the County
-
He was simultaneously the Auditor’s private counsel
-
He had prior direct involvement in a deferral agreement connected to the audit at issue
Nakamura — not the Ethics Board — produced the assertion that there was “no probable cause” to investigate Corporation Counsel’s failure to seek a conflict opinion.
Given the circumstances:
-
He had a conflict of interest
-
He had no proper authority to speak for the County
-
His conclusions should not have been accepted
Yet they were accepted without scrutiny, forming the basis for dismissing a key ethics inquiry.
The public has the right to know what occurred inside that session. The release of the minutes is essential for accountability.
IX. SYSTEMIC PATTERNS: A LONGSTANDING STRUCTURE SHOWING STRAIN
For years, Corporation Counsel has exercised near‑total control over:
-
Ethics interpretation
-
Legal strategy
-
Defense of county departments
-
Oversight of land‑use enforcement
-
Shielding of County officials from accountability
The 2024 Charter amendment was a direct response to those patterns. Now, as the county attempts to implement the reform, those on the receiving end of ethical scrutiny appear resistant.
But the environment has changed.
OIP is involved.
ODC may become involved.
Public awareness is increasing.
More citizens are stepping forward.
This is the most significant challenge to Corporation Counsel’s longstanding influence in decades.
X. WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
The petition is one piece of a larger effort. It asks Maui County to follow the Charter, honor the voters’ intent, and restore independence to the Ethics Board.
The public deserves:
-
Transparent decision‑making
-
Independent legal review
-
Conflict‑free investigations
-
Accountability for county attorneys
-
Ethical oversight free from political interference
The County cannot move forward — especially in the wake of the Lahaina disaster — without a government that operates with integrity.
Maui’s citizens voted for independence in 2024.
Now we must ensure that independence is real.
CONCLUSION
Maui County stands at a turning point.
The people created the legal framework for a fair and independent ethics system.
The government must now implement it faithfully.
This report and the accompanying petition are part of a sustained effort to restore transparency, strengthen ethical oversight, and rebuild public trust in Maui County government.
The work continues — but progress is underway.
RECIPIENTS OF THIS PETITION
This petition is respectfully addressed to:
• Maui County Council
As Maui’s legislative body, the Council has the authority to:
– Enact ordinances enforcing independence of the Board of Ethics
– Compel production of executive‑session minutes
– Oversee Corporation Counsel and the County Auditor
– Hold hearings and demand corrective action
– Allocate or restructure budgets to ensure true independence
• Maui County Board of Ethics
Responsible for complaint intake, investigation, findings of fact, conflict‑free deliberation, and enforcement of the 2024 Charter amendment.
• Mayor of Maui County
As chief executive, the Mayor can direct Corporation Counsel to withdraw from conflicted matters and support structural independence reforms.
• State of Hawai‘i Office of Information Practices (OIP)
Now actively investigating Sunshine Law violations related to conflicted executive sessions (OIP Appeal 26‑19). Public support strengthens their work and demands transparency.
• Hawai‘i Second Circuit Court
While courts cannot be petitioned for political action, petitioners reserve the right to seek judicial relief, including declaratory and injunctive action, if County agencies fail to comply with the Charter, Sunshine Law, and ethical obligations.
SIGN THE PETITION TO RESTORE PUBLIC TRUST IN MAUI COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Together, we can ensure that Maui County upholds the principles of integrity, independence, and transparency that our community deserves.