URL-provided case (name will be extracted)
West's Hawai'i Reports and Pacific Reporter (2025)
Rule of Law:
Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are state employees subject to the State Ethics Code and the jurisdiction of the State Ethics Commission because OHA is a state agency rather than a political subdivision. Furthermore, a public official's acceptance of substantial gifts from a donor who is actively litigating against the official's agency violates the gifts law if it creates a reasonable inference of influence.
Facts:
- Rowena Akana served as an elected trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), a semi-autonomous state entity tasked with bettering conditions for Native Hawaiians.
- The OHA Board established a Trustee Allowance Fund for incidental expenses, governed by OHA policy and state ethics laws.
- Between 2013 and 2017, Akana used this fund for various expenditures, including a Hawaiian Airlines Premier Club membership, home cable television, and food for staff, some of which were later disallowed by OHA staff.
- Simultaneously, Akana filed a lawsuit against the other OHA trustees regarding access to executive session records.
- Abigail Kawānanakoa, an OHA beneficiary, paid over $72,000 of Akana's legal fees for this lawsuit because she believed the issue was important.
- Akana did not timely disclose these payments to the Ethics Commission.
- In February 2017, Kawānanakoa filed a separate lawsuit against OHA; despite this, Akana continued to accept legal fee payments from her.
- Akana participated in at least one executive session regarding Kawānanakoa's lawsuit against OHA while continuing to accept the financial payments.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hawai‘i State Ethics Commission charged Akana with 53 counts of violating the Ethics Code.
- The Commission held a contested case hearing and issued a Decision and Order finding Akana violated the Code in 47 counts and fined her $23,106.53.
- Akana appealed the Commission's decision to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
- The Circuit Court affirmed the Commission's decision.
- Akana appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).
- The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment.
- Akana filed an application for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Hawai‘i State Ethics Commission have jurisdiction to enforce the State Ethics Code against trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), and did the trustee's acceptance of legal fees from a beneficiary constitute prohibited gifts?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Recktenwald
Yes, the Commission has jurisdiction because OHA is a state agency rather than a political subdivision, and Akana's acceptance of legal fees constituted prohibited gifts given the donor's active litigation against OHA. The Court reasoned that under the Hawai‘i Constitution, only 'political subdivisions' (like counties) are required to have their own separate ethics commissions. OHA does not fit this definition; it is a 'body corporate' and a state agency, meaning its trustees are 'employees' under HRS Chapter 84. The Court rejected Akana's argument that her fiduciary duties to beneficiaries conflicted with the Ethics Code, holding instead that the Code sets a minimum standard of conduct. Regarding the gifts, the Court found that while the initial payments might have been permissible, once the donor (Kawānanakoa) sued OHA, the continued acceptance of money created a reasonable inference of influence prohibited by HRS § 84-11, especially since Akana failed to recuse herself from Board discussions regarding that lawsuit.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal status of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, establishing it as a state agency subject to central oversight rather than a semi-sovereign political subdivision. By rejecting the argument that fiduciary duties to beneficiaries override statutory ethics rules, the Court ensures that OHA trustees remain accountable to the general public through the State Ethics Commission. Additionally, the ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of gift laws, emphasizing that even gifts from beneficiaries or ideological allies become prohibited when the donor is actively litigating against the agency.
