Maui County Human Services Review and Strategic Planning Meeting - July 30, 2026

On July 30, 2026, the Maui County Council's Committee on Human Services convened at 1:23 PM to receive a presentation on the Align HR project, a comprehensive review of the county's human resources services and strategic planning. The meeting included opening remarks from County Managing Director Josiah Nishita and Director of Personnel Services Cynthia Razo-Porter, followed by a detailed presentation from Guide House, the consulting firm contracted to lead the project. Public testimony was taken from two individuals, and council members engaged in extensive discussion about the project's scope, challenges, and potential solutions. The meeting concluded at 3:30 PM with no legislative action taken.

Consent Calendar

• No items on the consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jesse Lall: Testified anonymously, expressing concerns about county employee conduct and referencing a negative experience with a state official at the airport. He urged leaders to act with honesty.
• Johan Lal: Testified on his own behalf, sharing his experience with the county hiring process (applied 5-6 times, offered 3 jobs, accepted 2). He made several suggestions: allow more flexibility in starting pay within the salary range to attract applicants; permit substitution of experience for degrees in job qualifications; reconsider drug testing for non-safety-sensitive positions; and give hiring managers more direct access to applicant lists rather than heavy filtering by HR. He noted that current rules already provide flexibility but are not utilized.

Discussion Items

• Project Overview & Presentation: Guide House (Matt Petrowski, Amber Seagroves, Callie Seymour, Miranda Vetter, Melissa Pavlachek) presented the Align HR project. The county budget has nearly doubled from $870 million in 2020 to $1.6 billion today, with five new departments added in recent years. The existing HR framework was designed many years ago and is not suited to current needs. The project has two work streams: (1) reviewing and updating personnel rules, policies, and procedures; (2) evaluating current HR practices, roles, and structure to develop a strategic plan and phased implementation. Guide House has completed 10 interviews and 8 working sessions with over 70 additional interviews planned. Priority processes for improvement include recruitment/hiring, classification, and reorganizations. The project timeline spans 11 months of assessment and planning, with a second year dedicated to implementation and change management.
• Committee Vice Chair Tamara Paulton: Expressed strong support for the project and asked about addressing state-level legislative obstacles. Managing Director Nishita confirmed that if state law barriers are identified, the county may pursue legislative changes through HSAC. Paulton inquired about reducing hiring time (e.g., from 90 days to match private sector). Guide House noted they have reduced hiring time by 30-50% in other public sector jurisdictions by improving alignment and process steps. She also raised the issue of tying wages to the actual cost of living in Maui, noting that many employees cannot afford to live where they work. Nishita said that compensation and classification analysis may follow in a future phase, but collective bargaining constraints exist.
• Member Kawanoya Batangan: Asked whether the fraud risk assessment recommendations are being incorporated into the hiring process. Nishita clarified the two projects are separate but collaborative, and that items like background checks are already being flagged by stakeholders. He also asked which issues require coordination with the state and other counties versus those the county can address independently. Director Razo-Porter explained the project covers DPS administrative rules (14 chapters, 102 pages) covering pay, classification, recruitment, performance evaluations, and training. Departmental reorganizations are included if they touch HR.
• Member Gabe Johnson: Emphasized the need to understand what workers want (e.g., daycare, adult care, gym memberships) beyond just rules and procedures—a holistic approach to employee engagement. He shared an anecdote of a qualified applicant who applied 16 times before being hired, calling for process streamlining. He offered to help change county code if it is a barrier, and urged the administration to flag legislative needs at the state level. Nishita welcomed legislative assistance and noted future requests for additional resources may arise.
• Council Chair Alice Lee: Recalled that when she served on the Civil Service Commission, a department-level survey revealed that roadblocks often lie with line staff doing the hiring, not directors. She emphasized finding bottlenecks through interviews with those staff. She asked Guide House about typical problems and solutions from other projects. Guide House cited lack of process tracking (e.g., simple Excel trackers for hiring steps) as a common issue. Lee also pressed on the role of collective bargaining and union constraints; she noted that for hard-to-fill positions (e.g., engineers), the county could reconsider bargaining unit classifications and increase pay through supplemental agreements. She stated the council will find funding if the administration identifies solutions.
• Member Yuki Lei Sugimura: Expressed excitement about the project, noting that departments often blame personnel for delays. She mentioned her uncle, a former DPS employee, and the historic view of county jobs as desirable. She asked why Guide House works with only DTS among state departments, and was told it is due to alignment with their services (Act 100 compliance). She raised the issue of 911 dispatchers, seeking higher pay and recognition for their skills, but acknowledged that creating a new bargaining unit would require legislative action. She supported telework, 4/10 schedules, and childcare/parent care benefits to make the county a more attractive employer.
• Member Shane Senancy: Identified three key issues: (1) the hiring process filters applicants before managers can interview them directly; (2) minimum qualifications (MQs) are too rigid, excluding qualified candidates who don't check every box; (3) merit pay for high performers is not allowed due to rules. He urged the project to focus on fixing these structural impediments, noting that legislative changes at both county and state levels may be needed. He acknowledged current staff are doing their best within the system.
• Member Cook: Asked how salaries can be adjusted to address the high cost of living, given that HUD guidelines haven't kept pace. Guide House said total rewards (compensation + other incentives like bonuses) are being considered, and while a full compensation study is outside current scope, they will look at recruiting bonuses and other incentives. The project is still in early information-gathering stages.
• Chair Rollins Fernandez: Noted that the current administrative rules (Title MC 11) were last updated in December 2002 (nearly 24 years ago). She asked about the process for updating them, which includes public hearings and approval. She asked who will shepherd the contract after Director Razo-Porter's departure; Managing Director Nishita confirmed Diana Marantes, Kainea, and others will continue. She asked if Guide House plans to meet with the Civil Service Commission (the oversight body); they have not yet, but it is scheduled in the coming weeks. She also asked about technology and software assessment—Guide House confirmed technology will be reviewed. She suggested a 15-minute recess, but after polling members, questions continued without a break.
• Committee Vice Chair Paulton (further questions) : Asked about performance evaluations—how to improve completion rates and tie evaluations to monetary incentives or promotions. Guide House suggested opportunities exist to streamline the process and make it easier for supervisors and employees. Paulton also raised worker safety, citing an incident where a gun was brought into the planning department. She asked if workplace safety policies (including public-to-worker harassment) were part of the project. Counsel clarified that HR-related policies, including violence in the workplace, are within scope. Paulton asked where the current rules are posted; they are on the county website under DPS.
• Member Johnson (further) : Questioned why a supplemental income for clerks and planning staff did not move forward. Managing Director Nishita explained that a letter was sent to the council outlining necessary steps, but no action has been taken by the council since. The ball is in the council's court.
• Chair Rollins Fernandez (final) : Noted that HR specialists are in BU13, which often receives less competitive pay increases, and stressed that to fix the system, the county must retain its HR staff as well.

Key Outcomes

• No legislative action was taken; the item was a 7B presentation only.
• The project will continue with stakeholder interviews (over 70 planned) and analysis of findings.
• The administration committed to providing progress updates to the committee, with the next anticipated update around the beginning of 2027.
• Council members expressed strong support for the project and offered to assist with legislative changes at both county and state levels as needed.
• Managing Director Nishita confirmed the project budget is a two-year contract with an option to extend for three additional one-year terms.
• The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM.