Considerable testimony before the Council revealed that Don Guzman was serially abusive to women he worked with during his time as Prosecutor and even in previous government roles. Any proposed settlement with Don Guzman is a matter of great public importance, and the public deserves to know the Council's reasoning if it makes a decision to approve settlement of his lawsuit. The resolution is vague and lacks details supporting any reason for settlement. Notably, while Mr. Guzman's Complaint is attached to the resolution, the court's order on the motion for summary judgment is not included. The public should be able to read the court order without having to look for it and pay to retrieve it on Pacer.
I ask Council to please approach discussion of this resolution item with as much transparency as possible so that the public has the benefit of understanding what legal reasoning supports a decision to settle with Mr. Guzman. Any executive session meetings on this topic should be strictly limited to the purpose of discussing with Council's attorney only "questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities." HRS ยง 92-5(a)(4). I encourage Council to review a 2019 Hawaii Supreme Court decision, Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 at 68-70, which similarly involved discussions for settlement with a high-ranking public official. The case discusses the permissible scope of the attorney-client exception to the Sunshine Law. Once Council receives the benefit of its attorney's advice, it should discuss its potential courses of action in open session before voting in open session.
Considerable testimony before the Council revealed that Don Guzman was serially abusive to women he worked with during his time as Prosecutor and even in previous government roles. Any proposed settlement with Don Guzman is a matter of great public importance, and the public deserves to know the Council's reasoning if it makes a decision to approve settlement of his lawsuit. The resolution is vague and lacks details supporting any reason for settlement. Notably, while Mr. Guzman's Complaint is attached to the resolution, the court's order on the motion for summary judgment is not included. The public should be able to read the court order without having to look for it and pay to retrieve it on Pacer.
I ask Council to please approach discussion of this resolution item with as much transparency as possible so that the public has the benefit of understanding what legal reasoning supports a decision to settle with Mr. Guzman. Any executive session meetings on this topic should be strictly limited to the purpose of discussing with Council's attorney only "questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities." HRS ยง 92-5(a)(4). I encourage Council to review a 2019 Hawaii Supreme Court decision, Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 at 68-70, which similarly involved discussions for settlement with a high-ranking public official. The case discusses the permissible scope of the attorney-client exception to the Sunshine Law. Once Council receives the benefit of its attorney's advice, it should discuss its potential courses of action in open session before voting in open session.