Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Counsel Spending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maui Council approves nearly $1.1 million for outside legal defense amid public opposition
Summary
The Maui County Council voted 9-0 to authorize outside special counsel payments totaling up to $1.125 million for two separate legal matters, drawing multiple public testifiers who urged the money be used for victim support or community programs instead.
The Maui County Council voted 9-0 on April 4 to authorize additional compensation for two outside law firms to represent county interests in separate lawsuits, approving up to $200,000 for ES & A, Inc. and up to $925,000 for Kobayashi, Sugita and Gota, LLP.
The council’s Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee recommended the measures in committee reports CR 25-20 and CR 25-21. Member Ou Hodgins moved the resolutions onto the council floor; both passed unanimously after brief council discussion about the limits of council authority in matters where commissions determine representation.
Why it matters: Testimony at the meeting objected strongly to using public funds for outside legal defense in cases tied to alleged wrongdoing, whistleblowing and a firefighter’s death. Several speakers urged the council to instead allocate money to the family of the deceased firefighter, training and equipment, or community programs.
Public testimony highlighted competing concerns. Christopher Salem, who has been a frequent critic of county legal practices, said the county’s use of outside counsel has “shielded a small circle’s illegal past” and accused corporation counsel of obstructing audits; he urged the council to stop further payments to KSG and said the firm’s fees would “continue shielding” alleged improprieties. Johan Law and Michelle Bridal Rosario also testified in opposition. Bridal Rosario said she would “rather see that $150,000 given to the family” of firefighter Trey Evans Dumuran and suggested independent safety audits and funding for a memorial or foundation.
Council members and county attorneys responded that the council’s options are limited in certain personnel matters when commissions (for example, the Fire and Public Safety Commission) determine whether the county must provide representation. Corporation counsel told the council that the charter requires council approval to retain special counsel by resolution and that the commissions’ decisions about representation cannot be overridden without legal risk.
Actions taken - Resolution (CR 25-20 / Reso 25-52): Authorize additional compensation not to exceed $200,000 to ES & A, Inc. to represent a Department of Fire and Public Safety employee in civil case Evans (estate) v. Scott Martin. Outcome: approved 9-0. - Resolution (CR 25-21 / Reso 25-75): Authorize additional compensation in the amount of $475,000 for a total not to exceed $925,000 to Kobayashi, Sugita and Gota, LLP as special counsel to represent the County of Maui in Salem v. County of Maui et al. Outcome: approved 9-0.
What council members said: During deliberations, Deputy Corporation Counsel and other staff emphasized that council approval is required to hire special counsel and that commissions have authority to determine whether the county must provide representation to covered employees. Member Ou Hodgins moved both actions forward and asked staff about nonmonetary alternatives, including audits and community grants; staff said those options remain available but are separate from the pending litigation.
Next steps: The special-counsel contracts will proceed under the approved ceilings. Several testifiers asked the council to seek alternative uses for litigation dollars; those requests would require separate council action (budget amendment or appropriation) if pursued.
