I am submitting this testimony to request a comprehensive public review of Maui County's ethics system, conflict-of-interest practices, recusal standards, campaign influence, and the performance and accountability of the Board of Ethics.
This is not about one project, one councilmember, one developer, one union, one political action committee, or one complaint. It is about a pattern that many residents believe they have observed across multiple County decisions involving land use, housing, infrastructure, nonprofit funding, campaign finance, and ethics oversight.
Public trust is the foundation of government. That trust is not earned through slogans, assurances, or statements that "everything was legal." It is earned through transparency, disclosure, accountability, independent oversight, and a willingness to examine difficult questions when they arise.
The County has seen numerous projects that have generated substantial public concern, including Hoʻonani Village, EC Pāʻia Town, Wailea 670, Bill 9, and many other major land use matters. While each project is unique, they share a common thread. Residents continue asking whether decisions are being made solely on their merits or whether political influence, campaign relationships, and organized interests have become intertwined with the decision-making process.
The proposed Hoʻonani Village development illustrates the scale of these concerns. A project of more than 1,600 proposed residential units, commercial space, industrial uses, parks, and supporting infrastructure naturally deserves extraordinary public scrutiny. Questions have been raised regarding transportation, water availability, wastewater capacity, airport compatibility, environmental review, and the pace at which approvals move relative to the ability of the public to meaningfully evaluate the proposal. Those questions should not be viewed as opposition to housing. They are questions about process, transparency, infrastructure, and accountability.
The EC Pāʻia Town proposal raises similar issues. Residents have questioned whether existing infrastructure can adequately support additional development, whether community concerns have received meaningful consideration, and whether long-term planning is keeping pace with growth. Again, questioning a project is not opposition to housing. It is an expectation that major decisions affecting future generations receive complete and transparent review.
Wailea 670 has likewise generated years of public debate regarding planning, infrastructure, environmental impacts, and the approval process. Regardless of where one stands on that project, it demonstrates why the public expects a planning system that applies standards consistently, explains decisions openly, and leaves no reasonable question that all applicants are treated equally under the law.
Bill 9 further demonstrated how significant financial interests can mobilize when public policy affects them. Maui residents witnessed one of the largest organized public relations and advertising campaigns surrounding a County housing measure in recent memory. Television advertisements, digital advertising, mailers, organized advocacy, lobbying, and coordinated messaging became central features of the debate. Regardless of whether one supported or opposed Bill 9, the measure demonstrated the substantial financial resources that can be deployed to influence public opinion and governmental decision-making when significant economic interests are involved.
The issue is not whether those efforts were lawful. They generally were.
The issue is whether the public has sufficient transparency to understand who is funding those campaigns, what interests are involved, what relationships exist between contributors and decision-makers, and whether current disclosure laws provide residents with enough information before important votes occur.
Campaign finance deserves serious examination.
Election after election, unions, developers, political action committees, trade organizations, consultants, and other organized interests contribute substantial financial support to County candidates or independently advocate on their behalf. Those same interests frequently appear before the Council seeking approvals involving development, labor agreements, County contracts, infrastructure investments, funding requests, zoning changes, affordable housing projects, or other governmental actions.
Campaign contributions are protected by law. However, when significant contributors later have matters before the County, residents reasonably ask whether additional disclosure or recusal standards should apply to preserve public confidence.
The public should never be expected simply to assume that campaign support has no effect on governmental decisions. Confidence is strengthened when transparency is strengthened.
Maui has also experienced repeated situations where nonprofit organizations, land trusts, advisory organizations, and other entities receiving County funding or participating in County initiatives have overlapping relationships with individuals serving in public roles. These circumstances do not automatically establish wrongdoing, but they do raise legitimate questions about disclosure, recusal, and public confidence.
Government should avoid not only actual conflicts of interest, but also circumstances that create a reasonable appearance of conflicting loyalties.
That principle becomes especially important when billions of taxpayer dollars are involved.
The Board of Ethics was established to promote ethical government by receiving complaints, conducting investigations where appropriate, issuing advisory opinions, administering disclosure requirements, and enforcing the County's ethics laws.
On paper, those responsibilities are significant.
The question before this Committee is whether the Board's performance has met public expectations.
Many residents have little understanding of how many complaints have been filed, how many have been investigated, how many have been dismissed, how long matters remain pending, what recurring issues have been identified, or whether recommendations for stronger ethics laws have been made to the Council.
Transparency requires measurable performance.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that this Committee review the Board of Ethics' operational history, including:
• The total number of complaints received over the past decade.
• The number dismissed.
• The number investigated.
• The number resolved through advisory opinions.
• The number resulting in findings of violations.
• Average investigation timelines.
• Staffing levels and budget history.
• Recommendations previously made to strengthen the County Ethics Code.
• Whether recurring trends reveal areas requiring legislative reform.
The purpose of such a review is not to criticize the Board for its own sake. It is to determine whether the existing ethics system is accomplishing the purpose for which it was created.
This Committee should also examine whether current recusal standards remain adequate.
Residents have observed councilmembers request guidance from Corporation Counsel regarding potential conflicts before participating in certain matters. That practice recognizes the importance of ethical decision-making. The Committee should consider whether clearer, more uniform standards would further strengthen public confidence whenever campaign contributors, employers, nonprofit affiliations, business relationships, or governance positions intersect with matters before the Council.
The County should also evaluate whether additional campaign disclosure requirements are appropriate whenever organized interests appearing before the County have provided significant political support to elected officials.
Ultimately, this discussion extends beyond any single project or vote.
It concerns whether Maui County's institutions are structured to maintain public confidence at a time when government decisions involve unprecedented levels of public spending, redevelopment, housing policy, infrastructure investment, disaster recovery, environmental stewardship, and long-term community planning.
Residents deserve confidence that decisions are made because they represent the best interests of Maui County—not because they benefit the most organized, well-funded, or politically connected interests.
I respectfully request that this Committee undertake a thorough public review of ethics oversight, campaign influence, disclosure requirements, recusal practices, and the effectiveness of the Board of Ethics, and recommend any reforms necessary to strengthen transparency and restore public confidence.
The people of Maui deserve a government that not only complies with the law but consistently demonstrates independence, integrity, openness, and accountability.
Please accept this as a correction to my previously submitted written testimony.
In my original testimony, I incorrectly identified Councilmember Tom Cook when referring to comments made during committee discussions. The correct Councilmember is Kauanoe Batangan.
The correction is limited solely to the identification of the Councilmember. My comments, concerns, and the substance of my testimony remain unchanged.
I respectfully request that this correction be included in the record with my written testimony.
Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee,
I am submitting this testimony to request a comprehensive public review of Maui County's ethics system, conflict-of-interest practices, recusal standards, campaign influence, and the performance and accountability of the Board of Ethics.
This is not about one project, one councilmember, one developer, one union, one political action committee, or one complaint. It is about a pattern that many residents believe they have observed across multiple County decisions involving land use, housing, infrastructure, nonprofit funding, campaign finance, and ethics oversight.
Public trust is the foundation of government. That trust is not earned through slogans, assurances, or statements that "everything was legal." It is earned through transparency, disclosure, accountability, independent oversight, and a willingness to examine difficult questions when they arise.
The County has seen numerous projects that have generated substantial public concern, including Hoʻonani Village, EC Pāʻia Town, Wailea 670, Bill 9, and many other major land use matters. While each project is unique, they share a common thread. Residents continue asking whether decisions are being made solely on their merits or whether political influence, campaign relationships, and organized interests have become intertwined with the decision-making process.
The proposed Hoʻonani Village development illustrates the scale of these concerns. A project of more than 1,600 proposed residential units, commercial space, industrial uses, parks, and supporting infrastructure naturally deserves extraordinary public scrutiny. Questions have been raised regarding transportation, water availability, wastewater capacity, airport compatibility, environmental review, and the pace at which approvals move relative to the ability of the public to meaningfully evaluate the proposal. Those questions should not be viewed as opposition to housing. They are questions about process, transparency, infrastructure, and accountability.
The EC Pāʻia Town proposal raises similar issues. Residents have questioned whether existing infrastructure can adequately support additional development, whether community concerns have received meaningful consideration, and whether long-term planning is keeping pace with growth. Again, questioning a project is not opposition to housing. It is an expectation that major decisions affecting future generations receive complete and transparent review.
Wailea 670 has likewise generated years of public debate regarding planning, infrastructure, environmental impacts, and the approval process. Regardless of where one stands on that project, it demonstrates why the public expects a planning system that applies standards consistently, explains decisions openly, and leaves no reasonable question that all applicants are treated equally under the law.
Bill 9 further demonstrated how significant financial interests can mobilize when public policy affects them. Maui residents witnessed one of the largest organized public relations and advertising campaigns surrounding a County housing measure in recent memory. Television advertisements, digital advertising, mailers, organized advocacy, lobbying, and coordinated messaging became central features of the debate. Regardless of whether one supported or opposed Bill 9, the measure demonstrated the substantial financial resources that can be deployed to influence public opinion and governmental decision-making when significant economic interests are involved.
The issue is not whether those efforts were lawful. They generally were.
The issue is whether the public has sufficient transparency to understand who is funding those campaigns, what interests are involved, what relationships exist between contributors and decision-makers, and whether current disclosure laws provide residents with enough information before important votes occur.
Campaign finance deserves serious examination.
Election after election, unions, developers, political action committees, trade organizations, consultants, and other organized interests contribute substantial financial support to County candidates or independently advocate on their behalf. Those same interests frequently appear before the Council seeking approvals involving development, labor agreements, County contracts, infrastructure investments, funding requests, zoning changes, affordable housing projects, or other governmental actions.
Campaign contributions are protected by law. However, when significant contributors later have matters before the County, residents reasonably ask whether additional disclosure or recusal standards should apply to preserve public confidence.
The public should never be expected simply to assume that campaign support has no effect on governmental decisions. Confidence is strengthened when transparency is strengthened.
Maui has also experienced repeated situations where nonprofit organizations, land trusts, advisory organizations, and other entities receiving County funding or participating in County initiatives have overlapping relationships with individuals serving in public roles. These circumstances do not automatically establish wrongdoing, but they do raise legitimate questions about disclosure, recusal, and public confidence.
Government should avoid not only actual conflicts of interest, but also circumstances that create a reasonable appearance of conflicting loyalties.
That principle becomes especially important when billions of taxpayer dollars are involved.
The Board of Ethics was established to promote ethical government by receiving complaints, conducting investigations where appropriate, issuing advisory opinions, administering disclosure requirements, and enforcing the County's ethics laws.
On paper, those responsibilities are significant.
The question before this Committee is whether the Board's performance has met public expectations.
Many residents have little understanding of how many complaints have been filed, how many have been investigated, how many have been dismissed, how long matters remain pending, what recurring issues have been identified, or whether recommendations for stronger ethics laws have been made to the Council.
Transparency requires measurable performance.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that this Committee review the Board of Ethics' operational history, including:
• The total number of complaints received over the past decade.
• The number dismissed.
• The number investigated.
• The number resolved through advisory opinions.
• The number resulting in findings of violations.
• Average investigation timelines.
• Staffing levels and budget history.
• Recommendations previously made to strengthen the County Ethics Code.
• Whether recurring trends reveal areas requiring legislative reform.
The purpose of such a review is not to criticize the Board for its own sake. It is to determine whether the existing ethics system is accomplishing the purpose for which it was created.
This Committee should also examine whether current recusal standards remain adequate.
Residents have observed councilmembers request guidance from Corporation Counsel regarding potential conflicts before participating in certain matters. That practice recognizes the importance of ethical decision-making. The Committee should consider whether clearer, more uniform standards would further strengthen public confidence whenever campaign contributors, employers, nonprofit affiliations, business relationships, or governance positions intersect with matters before the Council.
The County should also evaluate whether additional campaign disclosure requirements are appropriate whenever organized interests appearing before the County have provided significant political support to elected officials.
Ultimately, this discussion extends beyond any single project or vote.
It concerns whether Maui County's institutions are structured to maintain public confidence at a time when government decisions involve unprecedented levels of public spending, redevelopment, housing policy, infrastructure investment, disaster recovery, environmental stewardship, and long-term community planning.
Residents deserve confidence that decisions are made because they represent the best interests of Maui County—not because they benefit the most organized, well-funded, or politically connected interests.
I respectfully request that this Committee undertake a thorough public review of ethics oversight, campaign influence, disclosure requirements, recusal practices, and the effectiveness of the Board of Ethics, and recommend any reforms necessary to strengthen transparency and restore public confidence.
The people of Maui deserve a government that not only complies with the law but consistently demonstrates independence, integrity, openness, and accountability.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.
Lore Menin
Kihei Resident
Subject: Correction to Written Testimony
Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee,
Please accept this as a correction to my previously submitted written testimony.
In my original testimony, I incorrectly identified Councilmember Tom Cook when referring to comments made during committee discussions. The correct Councilmember is Kauanoe Batangan.
The correction is limited solely to the identification of the Councilmember. My comments, concerns, and the substance of my testimony remain unchanged.
I respectfully request that this correction be included in the record with my written testimony.
Mahalo,
Edward Codelia