Court-Ordered Documents Reveal Maui County’s “Independent” Auditor is Protecting Corrupt County Lawyers

 

Link to add your name to the petition:

Signed already? Please add your name and email on this page so we can follow up with you directly:

Board of Ethics Complaint Filed IIComplaint No. 24-10 will be heard during a Board of Ethics meeting Wed, October 09, 2024 at 12:30 p.m., during executive session. No testimony will be taken at this time. That is why it’s so important to add your name to this petition now.

SUMMARY:
County attorneys have been ordered by Judge Peter Cahill to release government records which now reveal the County Auditor unethically suspended a County Audit which was requested by the members of the Maui County Council in a unanimous vote.

The Audit centers on thousands of unaccounted-for agreements executed by County attorneys with private developers that allowed their roadway infrastructure financial obligations to be “deferred” until the County performed a roadway project along their subdivision frontages.

The records reveal that no system or collection was ever adopted. Consequently, the local taxpayers end up paying for the developer’s tab. The amount of “deferred” developer debts is staggering, in the tens of millions of dollars at the very least. The audit would reveal this fact.

As a direct result, the “independent” County Auditor is now seeking legal representation from the very same law firm that is currently defending Corporation Counsel’s malfeasance in Circuit Court. The County Auditor’s complicit conduct is covering up the evidence of County attorney’s malfeasance and establishes a complete disregard for government auditing standards.

The Board of Ethics is being called upon to affirm that the responsibilities of the audited Corporation Counsel and the Office of the County Auditor are opposed to one another, and therefore KSG’s legal representation is a clear conflict of interest, and finally that the Auditor is clearly negligent for not requesting this Board of Ethics to provide a conflict-of-interest opinion.

The County Auditor must seek independent legal counsel.

The County Auditor must recuse themselves from the Audit.

By suspending the Audit, the County Auditor provided unwarranted advantages, and treatment, and covered up evidence of malfeasance by the conflicted Department of The Corporation Counsel in violation of their professional duties and the public’s interest.

Designated as Complaint No. 24-10. Chris Salem’s complaint will be heard during a Board of Ethics (“Board”) meeting scheduled on Wednesday, October 09, 2024 at 12:30 p.m., during executive session. This meeting will be held at the Planning Conference Room, 250 S High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 and virtually using interactive conference technology via Webex. Here is a link to the meeting. https://mauicounty.webex.com/meet/boardofethics

The Board of Ethics is being called upon to affirm that the responsibilities of the audited Corporation Counsel and the Office of the County Auditor are opposed to one another, and therefore KSG’s legal representation is a clear conflict of interest, and finally that the Auditor is clearly negligent for not requesting this Board of Ethics to provide a conflict-of-interest opinion.

The County Auditor must seek independent legal counsel.
The County Auditor must recuse themselves from the Audit.
By suspending the Audit, the County Auditor provided unwarranted advantages, and treatment, and covered up evidence of malfeasance by the conflicted Department of The Corporation Counsel in violation of their professional duties and the public’s interest.

To Chris Salem: On September 20, 2024 we received your Formal Complaint. It has been designated as Complaint No. 24-10. It will be heard during a Board of Ethics (“Board”) meeting scheduled on Wednesday, October 09, 2024 at 12:30 p.m., during executive session. This meeting will be held at the Planning Conference Room, 250 S High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 and virtually using interactive conference technology via Webex. Here is a link to the meeting. https://mauicounty.webex.com/meet/boardofethics

No testimony will be taken at that time, and the discussion will be continued by the Board members only. The Board will decide whether or not an informal hearing will be scheduled and you will be notified of the Board’s decision; if an informal hearing is scheduled, we will provide you with the date, time, and location.

Please note, that should the County be closed due to the weather or lack of quorum the meeting will be canceled. You will be notified and your Complaint will be heard at the next Regular scheduled Board meeting.

Thank you,
Tabitha Martins
Private Secretary to Victoria J. Takayesu, Corporation Counsel
Secretary, Maui County Board of Ethics
Department of the Corporation Counsel

Why is this important?

1. Misuse of Public Funds for Private Interests
● Argument: The use of public funds to defend Corporation Counsel in a case where their self-interests and the interests of private developers are at stake constitutes a violation of the public trust. Public funds are intended to serve the interests of the community, not to protect a select few County attorneys whose actions, as documented, have harmed the County financially and legally.
● Elaboration: The Corporation Counsel’s role is to provide legal guidance in the best interest of the County and its citizens, not to shield itself or private developers from liability. By allocating taxpayer resources to defend against claims of fraud and malfeasance, the Corporation Counsel undermines public confidence and violates its fiduciary duties.
–
2. Conflict of Interest Compounded by Use of External Counsel
● Argument: The hiring of the law firm Kobayashi, Sugita, and Goda (KSG) without proper conflict review amplifies the appearance of impropriety, as it further solidifies the conflict of interest inherent in the Corporation Counsel’s role.
● Elaboration: The retention of KSG to represent both the Corporation Counsel and the County Auditor, who is meant to be independently auditing the Corporation Counsel, creates an irreparable conflict. The same law firm representing adverse and conflicting parties raises questions about the objectivity and fairness of the legal proceedings.
–
3. Failure to Safeguard Public Interest by the County Auditor
● Argument: The County Auditor’s failure to complete the audit and report fraud and misdealings demonstrates a failure to uphold the public interest, violating the ethical responsibilities defined under the Maui County Charter and Government Auditing Standards.
● Elaboration: The suspension of the audit, without appropriate reasoning or recourse, allows the alleged fraudulent activities to remain unaddressed. This inaction not only deprives the County of rightful restitution but also gives the Corporation Counsel and developers an unfair advantage by delaying accountability. The fact that the Auditor did not report the irregularities to proper authorities exacerbates this failure and further erodes trust in government institutions.
–
4. Attorney-Client Privilege Abuse
● Argument: The use of attorney-client privilege by the Corporation Counsel to withhold key records and communications from the audit process is an abuse of privilege intended to shield malfeasance, rather than to protect legitimate legal strategy.
● Elaboration: Attorney-client privilege is intended to protect the integrity of legal communications, not to obstruct transparency in government actions. In this case, the privilege is being used to prevent the disclosure of records that are crucial to assessing whether fraudulent deferral agreements were executed by Corporation Counsel. The abuse of this privilege reinforces the need for independent counsel to investigate and audit the claims without interference or influence.
–
5. Potential Violation of State and Federal Law
● Argument: The Corporation Counsel’s alleged actions, in concert with private developers, may also violate State and Federal laws regarding fraud and misuse of public funds.
● Elaboration: Beyond the violation of local ordinances and ethical standards, the documented fraud involving deferral agreements may also breach broader laws, including federal anti-corruption statutes or state laws prohibiting fraudulent financial dealings with public entities. By refusing to disclose the related documents, the Corporation Counsel could be complicit in these violations, necessitating a deeper investigation at both the State and Federal levels.
–
6. Public Transparency and Accountability
● Argument: Public officials and departments, including the Corporation Counsel and the County Auditor, have an ethical and legal responsibility to maintain transparency, particularly in matters of public finance and development.
● Elaboration: The concealment of information about the deferral agreements and the suspension of the audit undermine public transparency. The Board of Ethics must consider whether the involved officials have breached the trust of the public by failing to be forthcoming with critical information. The lack of transparency prevents the public from understanding the full extent of the financial losses incurred by the County and the degree of improper influence by private developers.
–
Conclusion:
Public resources are being used improperly to protect individuals and entities with conflicts of interest, which violates ethical obligations to the public. Addressing these conflicts is essential to restoring public trust, ensuring accountability, and upholding the integrity of established County checks and balances.