Cost of Government Commission says nomination process for Maui boards is 'hostile and toxic,' flags slow recruitments

The Cost of Government Commission told the Maui County Council's Government Relations, Ethics & Transparency Committee on Sept. 2 that its study of county boards and commissions has found lengthy delays filling seats and a nomination/confirmation process some applicants perceive as "hostile and toxic." Vice Chair Cameron Dexter presented the commission's status update.

The commission said it reviewed earlier reports, surveyed department staff and board chairs, and followed up with interviews. "It's taking about 6 to 12 months to get a replacement or a vacancy filled," Dexter said, and added that recruitment is the commission's main finding. "The confirmation process is perceived as hostile and toxic," he said.

Why it matters: County boards and commissions advise departments, review permits and manage specialized programs. Prolonged vacancies or unclear roles reduce volunteer capacity, slow reviews and can leave panels without quorum for critical decisions, commissioners and council members said.

Dexter told the committee the commission has categorized boards by how hard they would be to change: 17 are created by county code, 15 by the county charter and four by the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Examples the commission is reviewing include the Commission on Aging, Commission on Persons with Disabilities, Commission on Children and Youth, the Maui Redevelopment Agency, the Cultural Resources Commission and Planning Commission advisory committees. The commission also noted one board it identified as not "low-hanging fruit": the Independent Nomination Board.

The commission said interviews and surveys surfaced several recurring issues: applicants want to make meaningful contributions but sometimes misunderstand a board's advisory role; some boards lack administrative support from the mayor's office; and the process of nomination and confirmation deters applicants who do not want public scrutiny in a small community. "We have the people who are serving actually wanna make a difference," Dexter said.

Early ideas discussed by the commission include standardizing some board sizes and changing appointment mechanics. Dexter described one option under discussion: "standardizing each board or commission to about nine members, four appointed by the mayor with no confirmation by council, then four appointed by council majority, [and] one appointed by [a] constituent panel." He emphasized the commission is still gathering information and has not finalized recommendations.

Next steps the commission described are two draft sections: first, recommendations to improve the recruitment, nomination and confirmation process; second, options for consolidation, elimination or role clarifications for boards and commissions. The commission said it will collect public input on any recommendations before finalizing a report to the mayor, county council and county auditor. Dexter did not give a firm completion date for the study.

Committee members asked about specific boards (for example, the animal-control board's name and scope, and potential consolidations such as merging aging and disability advisory groups). Dexter said the commission will return to collect additional information and that department staff and board chairs remain sources for clarifying historical purpose and administration support needs.

The committee did not take legislative action on the presentation; the commission will provide further materials and a draft for public comment.