Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and attorneys urge delay or review of planning‑commission nominations over incomplete applications and potential conflicts
Summary
Multiple testifiers asked the council to defer consideration of planning‑commission nominations, arguing that applicants’ public filings omitted employment and background details, and raising potential conflicts with major landowners that could require recusal.
Several speakers told the Maui County Council they oppose or seek further review of recent planning‑commission nominations, citing inconsistent application versions, missing employment information and potential conflicts of interest.
Attorney Les Iskovetz testified in opposition to Resolution 25‑108 and the nomination of Christopher Elizares to the Planning Commission, saying the mayor’s office appears to have used two different application versions and that the publicly released application for the nominee omits "vital relevant nonconfidential information" such as current employer, employment history and education.
"It's obviously very, very relevant that a major landowner is the employer of supposedly the next member of the planning commission," Iskovetz said, referring to McKenna Resort as the nominee’s employer and arguing the information should be public so possible conflicts can be assessed.
Separately, Francine Arona testified in opposition to committee‑approved nominee CJ Lazarus (native Hawaiian cultural adviser), saying she believed Lazarus is employed by McKenna ATC and does consulting work connected to development projects that could come before the commission. Arona urged the council to consider whether a confirmation would create conflicts for matters involving Makena A&T projects and recommended referral to the board of ethics if appropriate.
Why it matters: Planning‑commission members make land‑use decisions that can affect major development projects and environmental and cultural resources. Testimony raised procedural concerns about transparency and whether the public received adequate information to evaluate nominees’ potential conflicts.
Details and council response: Iskovetz said he sent the county clerk two versions of the application after finding discrepancies and requested the council defer consideration until the issues are resolved; he said corporation counsel had not answered his questions. Council members responded with clarification questions about the nomination process and whether an independent nomination board was involved; one member noted that nominations can also involve an independent process. Committee and council staff did not take a final vote on the nominations in the public testimony excerpt.
Ending: Speakers asked the council to delay action until publicly available application material is complete and recommended that the board of ethics or corporation counsel review potential conflicts before confirmation votes.
