Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nepotism Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances nepotism code amendment to ethics board review, sets 60-day review and postpones final action
Summary
Bill 21, which would amend Hawaii County Code to align nepotism provisions with state law (and expand certain familial definitions), was referred to the Board of Ethics for a 60‑day review; the committee also postponed further action to its Feb. 4 meeting to collect additional input from HR and procurement staff.
The Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs advanced Bill 21 — an amendment to Chapter 2, Article 15 of the Hawaii County Code addressing nepotism — by referring the draft to the Board of Ethics for review with a 60‑day response request and by postponing further committee action to the Feb. 4 meeting to allow additional staff input.
Councilmember Kimball introduced the measure as a code alignment with recent updates to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 84-13.2 to provide consistent standards for fair hiring and contracting practices. Human Resources Director Summer Tokihero told the committee the bill reflects recommendations from a 2017 county audit and a 2022 follow-up; the 2023 state statutory updates created the opportunity to codify the policy locally after a 2024 whistleblower complaint prompted renewed attention.
The proposed county language expands the definition of “immediate family” one degree beyond the state statute (adding a third-degree reference to include certain cousins), a point that drew sustained questions. Committee members asked Human Resources and the deputy director to clarify implementation: whether the new rule would apply retroactively (HR stated it would apply going forward) and how the county would prevent supervisory relationships between employees and their immediate relatives. Deputy Director Stan Cottel said HR would issue policy and guidance to implement whatever final language the council adopts and recommended the Board of Ethics review the draft to help interpret overlapping conflict provisions.
Councilmember Onishi explained his rationale for including the additional degree of relationship: he said close cousin relationships can create conditions where favoritism is perceived and should be covered. Other councilmembers expressed concern that the broader definition could hamper hiring, especially in areas with limited applicant pools, and asked that the draft be as clear as possible — for example, by listing relationships explicitly rather than relying on degrees of consanguinity language.
Following discussion, Kimball moved to refer Bill 21 to the Board of Ethics for review with a 60-day response timeline; the committee recorded eight ayes and one excused. The committee then approved a motion to postpone further action on Bill 21 to the Feb. 4 committee meeting, during which HR and procurement staff are expected to provide additional input.
