October surprise: OK, so who hasn’t heard about the big fight going on at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs over the abrupt departure of OHA’s CEO and the four board members who dared to step into the middle of that messy personnel problem — on the side of the CEO. It’s been in the headlines for a year and even threatened to upstage the OHA elections which are on the ballot now.

On Monday, the case of the rogue board members ended in a less than spectacular fashion with a slap on the wrist delivered in front of a mostly empty board room. The four bad guys had already walked out of the meeting before Board Vice Chair Keoni Souza could publicly thrash them. Once thrashed, the remaining five members voted to, wait for it, make a letter censuring them public. The Blog is sure they are shaking in their slippahs.

For those who have not been hanging on every unfolding detail of the OHA debacle, here’s a recap:

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat is focusing on transparency, accountability and ethics in government and other institutions. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

Last year, former CEO Stacy Ferreira filed a lawsuit against the board after being placed on administrative leave, which she claims was retaliation from Board Chair Kai Kahele for reporting him to the ethics commission over his handling of the office’s budget in 2025. OHA lawyers said that Ferreira sued as a way to head off a bad job review. 

In June, four of the trustees – Kalei Akaka, Keliʻi Akina, Luana Alapa and Carmen Hulu Lindsey – took the unusual step of getting in the middle of Ferreira’s lawsuit by filing what’s called an answer to the complaint after the board had already voted unanimously on a legal strategy to fight the case.

The other board members — Souza, Kahele, Dan Ahuna, Brickwood Galuteria and John Waiheʻe IV — were outraged and said that threatened to torpedo the office’s ability to defend itself.

They, being the five-member majority, ordered the dissenters to withdraw that legal filing. The rogues refused. It was ultimately struck from the court record by a judge in August.

Souza, as board vice chair, filed a complaint against the four trustees alleging that they had violated the board’s code of conduct that requires trustees to support decisions of the board and includes a “duty of loyalty” to OHA. 

Souza laid out his arguments on Monday but alas, the only ones left to hear them were a few staff members and a sparsely populated online audience (including The Blog).

Prior to the hearing, Akina said he would refuse to participate in the proceedings, which he painted as a “political exercise” to influence votes just a week out from the election. Two of the minority trustees and three in the majority, including Souza, are facing contested races.

Akina said the trustees can “stage whatever theater suits their political needs. I do not accept the role they assign me in this production.”

In the end, the five majority trustees found in favor of Souza and against the dissenting trustees. However, those trustees face what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Punishment could have included the option of removal from committees or restricting their access to confidential information. Instead, Souza asked only that a censure letter against each of the four trustees be made public.

“This was never about overturning any election or changing the balance of this board … or for anything that would reduce the voice their constituents gave them,” Souza said.

Sadly, none of this helped The Blog figure out who to vote for.

Hawaiʻi no ka ‘oi? No: The Aloha State has so much going for it compared with our mainland sister states, including great weather, a beautiful ʻāina surrounded by blue water and a generally healthy and long-living populace.

We lag big time in other areas, however. That includes freedom, at least when it comes to some things that should be free or more easily accomplished, says a new report from the Cato Institute, the D.C.-based libertarian think tank.

It’s 2026 ranking looks at all 50 states to size up their “support for and protection of both economic freedom and personal freedom across a wide range of issues.”

Arizona and Montana come in at No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, for overall economic freedom, the only A grades on the list. Hawaiʻi is at No. 50, just behind Massachusetts and New York, which also earned an F.

Hawaiʻi also came in dead last for the Economic Freedom score (its based on burdens placed on housing, tech, consumers and occupations) and the Personal Freedom score (based on firearms restrictions, law enforcement overreach and limits to recreation).

Meantime, Hawaiʻi Gov. Josh Green came in at No. 49 for overall grades on governors, just ahead of fellow Democrat Gavin Newsom of California and just behind Kathy Hochul of New York, also a Democrat. The top-scoring governor is Greg Gianforte (R) of Montana, the only governor to earn an A overall.

“His strongest score comes from pushing housing reforms in his state,” writes senior Cato fellow Stephen Slivinski.

Ouch.

Maui no ka ‘oi? Yes: The Blog was pleased to see that the Maui County Council voted unanimously Friday to advance a bill that would extend the Board of Ethics’ ability to pursue ethics violations from one to six years. It would also levy a $1,000 per violation. Bill 55 has a second reading set for Nov. 13.

The County Council’s Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee also voted 9-0 last week to recommend passage of a bill that would require paid lobbyists to register with the county and publicly report their spending.

“The measure would bring Maui County in line with the rest of Hawaiʻi,” Maui Now reported.

“Lobbying itself is not improper,” Board of Ethics Executive Director Lauren Akitake told council members. “Government benefits when people advocate for their interests and share information with elected officials and decision makers. This issue before us is not lobbying. The issue before us is transparency.”

The ordinance is not intended to be punitive or unnecessarily restrictive, she said.

“It’s intended to make clear who is being compensated or spending substantial funds to influence county decisions—who they represent, and the matters on which they are advocating,” according to Maui Now.

Bill 100 also awaits another council vote next month.