Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Commission Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears mixed testimony on CJ Elizares nomination to Maui Planning Commission; full‑council vote scheduled
Summary
The Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee on May 13 took public testimony and questioned nominees Christopher “CJ” Elizares and Creighton (Ka’uiki) Lind for seats on the Maui Planning Commission; the committee deferred final action and the nominations are scheduled for full‑council consideration on Friday.
The Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee on May 13 heard testimony and questioned two nominees for the Maui Planning Commission, including Christopher “CJ” Elizares and Creighton (Ka’uiki) Lind. The committee did not take a final vote; the nominations are posted for consideration by the full County Council on Friday’s agenda.
Why it matters: The Planning Commission has had quorum issues and handles land‑use, community plans and the rebuilding of areas including South Maui and Lahaina. Committee members described the commission’s workload, including long meetings and a near‑term need for additional members so votes are not decided automatically by lack of quorum.
Public testimony and positions: Ashley Lindsay, vice chair of the Maui Planning Commission, urged the committee to confirm Elizares, saying he would add cultural knowledge and steady service. “He’s always been deeply committed to his community. He stands on his values and is honest to a fault,” Lindsay testified.
Opposition testimony focused on disclosure of employment. Leslie Izkovic said she could not find public information on Elizares’ employer and argued the record should be complete before an appointment. “I stand strongly against mister Alizair’s nomination because failure to disclose upfront that he works for McKenna,” Izkovic said during public comment.
Staff response and application form: Jody Yoshida, boards and commissions liaison, told the committee that the application posted with the agenda follows County Code 2.410.02 and does not include employment information as part of the required public application package. Yoshida said council members may ask additional questions during the interview process.
Nominee statements and ethics: CJ Elizares answered members’ questions about residency and conflicts of interest, said he would consult corporation counsel or the Board of Ethics if a recusal question arose, and described his background in cultural resource work and place‑based practices. When asked whether he would recuse himself if a matter involved his employer, Elizares responded that he would check with counsel and recuse where appropriate. The committee advised nominees that an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics can be sought in advance for any potential conflicts.
Other procedural notes: Committee members discussed designating specialized seats on the commission. Staff and corporation counsel said the ordinance requires at least one cultural practitioner seat but does not limit the council from designating more than one qualified member if it chooses. Members asked staff about timelines; staff indicated nominees can complete required financial disclosures electronically and, if approved, could be sworn in quickly so the Planning Commission may regain full membership before upcoming hearings.
Ending: No vote was taken at the committee level; the nominations were posted for the County Council’s Friday agenda and remain subject to council action and any required disclosures or ethics reviews prior to final appointment.
