Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Council files IGA proposal for MPD response to National Guard alarms after public concern

October 10, 2025 | Maui County, Hawaii


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Council files IGA proposal for MPD response to National Guard alarms after public concern
At its Oct. 10 meeting, the Maui County Council voted to file committee report CR 25-64, which transmits a proposed bill (bill 121) that would authorize the mayor to enter an intergovernmental agreement allowing the Maui Police Department to respond to intrusion alarms at Hawaii Army National Guard facilities in the county.

The council’s Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning Committee recommended filing CR 25-64 after receiving a written legal opinion that the proposed intergovernmental agreement does not create a county financial obligation at this time. The council adopted the committee recommendation by voice and roll-call votes during the meeting; the motion to file was moved by Council Member Uhu Hodgins, seconded by Council Member Pro Tempore Tasha Kama, and passed with seven ayes and two members excused.

The issue drew public comment during the meeting’s public testimony period. Jake Carlton, an activist with Maui Indivisible, asked the council to seek clarity from the Maui Police Department on whether responding to National Guard alarms would divert officers from 911 calls: “Will MPD not respond to our 911 calls because they are responding to an intruder at guard facilities while the guard is sent to another state?”

Another testifier raised concerns about federal policy and lists that could label political organizations as threats; she urged greater scrutiny of partnerships that send county resources to support federal facilities. She said, in part, “I just wanted to point out, a pattern that we're seeing on the federal level…we just want to understand better.”

Deputy Corporation Counsel told the council that determining whether an intergovernmental agreement carries a financial obligation can be difficult and recommended clearer county code language going forward. Committee members said bringing the matter to council registers the issue publicly and allows more transparency.

The committee report’s filing does not itself create any agreement or obligation; rather it forwards the proposed bill to council for further processing. Councilors and multiple testifiers emphasized the need for transparency about how county officers and county funds would be used in any future agreement.

The council did not vote on the underlying intergovernmental agreement at the Oct. 10 meeting; the action recorded is the filing of CR 25-64 and transmission of the proposed bill for further consideration.

Ending

The filing sends the proposed bill to the council’s regular processing track. Council members asked that future steps include clearer language in county code to avoid recurring uncertainty over whether intergovernmental agreements create financial obligations and requested that staff and counsel continue outreach and explanation as the bill advances.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Hawaii articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI