Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Salem Settlement Authorization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maui County committee recommends council approval of settlement authorization in Salem lawsuit
Summary
The Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee voted 7-0 on Oct. 7 to recommend that full council adopt Resolution 25-184, which would authorize settlement in Christopher Salem v. County of Maui; the item was discussed in executive session and will advance to the full council.
The Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee voted unanimously on Oct. 7 to recommend that the full Maui County Council adopt Resolution 25-184, which would authorize settlement authority in the lawsuit Christopher Salem v. County of Maui (Civil No. 2 CCV 21-0000048). Committee members voted 7-0 to forward the resolution to the council with any non‑substantive revisions.
The complaint named in the resolution alleges breach of contract, tortious injury, and unlawful termination and sought special, general and punitive damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief. Special counsel Craig Shikuma of Kobayashi, Suguta & Goda LLP and Corporation Counsel staff attended the committee meeting and were designated as resource persons under council rules for the item. Counsel told the committee that the trial previously set for June 23 was continued and that a settlement conference is scheduled for Nov. 11; a Rule 68 offer had been made and responded to, and further settlement authority was discussed in executive session.
When asked for opening comments in open session, special counsel Craig Shikuma declined, saying he would "reserve my comments for executive session." After the committee completed executive-session deliberations and the statutory open‑session summary was given, committee member Yukile Sugimura moved the recommendation and Tasha Kamal seconded. The motion carried, recorded as "7 ayes, 0 nos"; the item will proceed to the full council for consideration.
The committee also voted in open session earlier to convene the executive meeting under HRS §92‑5(a)(4) and §92‑5(a)(8) to consult with legal counsel and deliberate on matters subject to confidentiality by court order. After the executive session, staff summarized that the committee discussed settlement efforts and potential liabilities relevant to the Salem matter. The committee made no final settlement payment or other binding settlement decisions in open session; it only recommended that the council consider adopting the resolution at a future council meeting.
