Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beneficiaries press OHA for investigative report and procurement records; counsel outlines redaction and release options
Summary
Beneficiaries asked why an independent investigative report into the administrator was commissioned and who authorized it; board counsel said a redacted executive summary could be publicly released only by unanimous board vote or ordered by a court, and that witness confidentiality and privilege constrain disclosure.
Multiple public commenters and trustees raised questions about transparency related to an independent investigative report concerning the OHA administrator. Beneficiary Germaine Myers said she filed a UIPA request seeking the investigation report, supporting evidence, witness statements, the investigator's contract and the total cost; she said OHA withheld the report and did not identify who authorized the investigation.
Board counsel and an outside attorney (Anna, ESNA) outlined options: a publicly redacted executive summary could be released if the board unanimously waives work-product or attorney-client privilege and removes information protected by other laws, or alternately the court can decide during discovery. Anna told trustees, "Either the board agrees to release the redacted version of the executive summary taking out all the attorney impressions, or, alternatively, you could leave it to the court under Hawaii rules of civil procedure 26 b." Trustees warned that releasing only an executive summary without context could harm witnesses or be seen as retaliatory; counsel advised further executive-session review and unanimous action would be required to proceed with public release.
