Maui County Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee Meeting – July 28, 2026

The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency (GREAT) Committee of the Maui County Council met on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 1:35 p.m. (reconvening from a recess at 3:07 p.m., adjourning at 4:39 p.m.) to consider three bills aimed at strengthening ethics oversight. The committee heard public testimony, deliberated at length, and voted to recommend passage of Bill 55 (2025) on first reading with amendments, while deferring Bill 99 (2026) on nepotism and Bill 100 (2026) on lobbyist regulations to a future meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Chivo Ching Johnson testified in support of all three bills, emphasizing the need to close loopholes and align Maui’s ethics framework with the state. He supported the six‑year statute of limitations and retroactive application.
• Katie Schroeder (Board of Ethics volunteer) urged passage of Bill 55 to prevent employees from escaping accountability by resigning, and supported the anti‑nepotism and lobbyist bills, noting Maui is one of only two counties without a countywide nepotism policy and the only county without comprehensive lobbyist rules.
• Albert Perez (registered lobbyist) supported Bill 100 but asked that reporting requirements align with state schedules, that the $5,000 penalty allow for warnings or graduated fines, and that state ethics training be accepted for county lobbyists. He also questioned how the county maintains its lobbyist registration list.
• Jesse Law expressed general support for the ethics bills but raised concerns about accessibility of meeting information and the process for filing complaints.
• Travis Liggett (mayoral candidate) testified about his experience as a whistleblower, urging the committee to consider broader corruption risks and foreign influence when drafting ethics laws.
• Christopher Salem supported the six‑year extension, citing examples of long‑running ethics investigations where jurisdiction was lost. He also called for expanding nepotism rules to cover “wink‑wink” relationships.
• James Langford shared his background in ethics and urged the committee to include community voices in drafting further reforms.
• Michael Lilly (Chair, Board of Ethics) strongly supported all three bills, explaining that they address practical gaps: lost jurisdiction when employees leave service, lack of a nepotism policy, and insufficient lobbyist transparency. He deferred to staff for technical details.
• Mad Schaefer testified in support of Bill 55, noting she filed a complaint that the board could not pursue because the employee had left county service. She confirmed the complaint was also referred to law enforcement.

Discussion Items

• Bill 55 (2025) – Relates to Code of Ethics violations and penalties. The original bill extended the Board of Ethics’ jurisdiction to six years after an employee separates from county employment. The committee considered a proposed CD1 version that:
  1. amends the title;
  2. starts the six‑year window from the date the alleged violation occurred (rather than separation);
  3. extends jurisdiction to six years from discovery (or when it should have been discovered) if the violation was concealed by fraud;
  4. changes the effective date to upon approval. After extensive discussion, the committee adopted an additional amendment to explicitly state that the law applies retroactively, inserted into Section 2.56.010. The board explained that employees are on notice of ethics rules from day one, and the Hawaii Supreme Court allows retroactive application when clearly stated. Some members expressed concerns about notice, the $1,000 fine cap versus the $5,000 lobbyist penalty, and the need for better referral systems between the ethics board, prosecutor, and council. Others supported the longer window to address past misconduct, citing COVID‑era procurements.
• Bill 99 (2026) – To establish prohibitions concerning nepotism. After brief discussion, the committee deferred the item without action, intending to bring it back at a later meeting.
• Bill 100 (2026) – To establish comprehensive lobbyist regulations. The committee also deferred this item, with Vice Chair U‘u‑Hodgins noting the need to clarify how often the lobbyist list is updated and to consider annual registration.

Key Outcomes

• Bill 55 (2025) was passed on first reading with a vote of 9–0 (all members present) after adopting two amendments: (1) replacement with the CD1 version (six‑year window from violation, discovery rule for fraud, effective upon approval); (2) addition of language explicitly stating retroactive application.
• Bill 99 (2026) was deferred to a future GREAT Committee meeting.
• Bill 100 (2026) was deferred to a future GREAT Committee meeting.
• The committee expressed interest in future bills on additional financial disclosures and conflicts of interest, and in developing a formal referral system between the Board of Ethics, county auditor, prosecutor, and council.