Maui County GREAT Committee Meeting on Lobbyist Regulations and Boards Review – October 20, 2026

The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency (GREAT) Committee met on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at 1:33 PM. The meeting focused on two major agenda items: advancing Bill 100 to establish comprehensive lobbyist regulations and receiving a report from the Cost of Government Commission on its review of boards and commissions. The meeting was chaired by Councilmember Kauanoe Batangan.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Michael Lilly (Chair, Board of Ethics): Offered brief opening remarks supporting the lobbyist ordinance but did not provide public testimony on the item.
• Caller (ID 4945): Expressed general support for the ethics framework and transparency, stating the public wants to see government "perceived to be acting fairly." Also commented on the need for a county-level judicial body during the second agenda item.
• Kevin Spellman (Political Economist, COGC Commissioner, testifying as private citizen): Presented extensive written testimony recommending a total restructuring of the boards and commissions system, including establishing an office of the judiciary, consolidating subject-area boards into one commission per department, and centralizing governing language into a single code title.
• Era Giwa (Student, Maui High School): Testified in strong support of transitioning the Commission on Children and Youth into a formal youth-led commission. Stated she gathered 56 signatures and 12 testimonies supporting the concept.

Bill 100 (2026): Comprehensive Lobbyist Regulations (GREAT-16)

The committee considered Bill 100, aiming to establish Maui County's first comprehensive lobbyist regulations. The bill requires registration for paid lobbyists meeting specific thresholds, semi-annual expenditure reporting, and includes restrictions on gifts.

• Presentation and Revised CD1: Laura Naki'eki, Executive Director of the Board of Ethics, presented the CD1 version of the bill. Changes since the July 28th hearing included: removing a formal training requirement in favor of administrative guidance; shifting the penalty reference from a specific $5,000 fine to the broader penalty structure under Section 2.56.010 (which Bill 55 caps at $1,000); and clarifying definitions for "legislative action" and reporting exemptions.
• Penalty Discussion: Board of Ethics Chair Michael Lilly advocated for restoring the $5,000 per violation cap, arguing lobbyist violations are distinct from standard employee ethics violations and aligning with the state standard. Deputy Corporation Counsel Caleb Burrell initially raised concerns but subsequently revised the administration's position, stating the Council has the discretion to set the penalty at $5,000. The committee voted 9-0 to amend the bill to include a $5,000 maximum fine.
• Scope and Board Coverage: Councilmember Rawlins-Fernandez raised concerns about whether lobbying before boards and commissions (specifically the Planning Commission) was covered. Corporation Counsel proposed amending the definition of "administrative action" to explicitly include "matters referred to the planning commissions by the council" and "actions to appoint or remove department heads pending before boards and commissions." The committee voted 9-0 to adopt this amendment.
• Thresholds and Definitions: The bill defines a lobbyist as any person paid to influence legislative or administrative action who meets specific thresholds (5+ hours/month or $1,000+ in expenditures). The committee clarified the distinction between a paid lobbyist and a community advocate. Exemptions for nonprofits lobbying on specific grant applications were discussed.
• Implementation: The bill is slated to take effect July 1, 2027, to allow time for education, online registration portal development, and administrative rulemaking by the Board of Ethics.

Cost of Government Commission (COGC) Recommendations for Boards and Commissions (GREAT-5(2))

The committee received a presentation from COGC Chair Goosens Larson on the commission's study of 15 of the county's over 30 boards and commissions.

• Key Findings: The COGC identified seven systemic themes including: unclear mission/duplication, volunteer burnout (citing the Real Property Tax Review Board which reviews ~1,000 appeals a year in 7-hour meetings, denying 95% of cases), quorum problems, recruitment difficulties due to residency requirements, conflicts of interest exposure, and lack of consistent staffing and disclosure standards.
• Recommendations: The COGC recommended structural reforms such as creating periodic review/sunset dates for boards, setting minimum staff support standards, strengthening recruitment (with or without the Independent Nomination Board), and applying consistent conflict of interest and disclosure standards.
• Council Feedback: Multiple councilmembers expressed support for the report's findings. Councilmember Gabe Johnson specifically endorsed the recommendation to create a youth-led commission. Chair Batangan noted the need to address the volunteer model's appropriateness for specific government functions.
• No Action: The agenda noted that no legislative action would be taken on this item. It was purely for information and discussion to guide future policy.

Key Outcomes

• Bill 100 (Lobbyist Regulations)

  • Passed Amendments:
    • Penalty Reinstatement: Motion to amend the penalty to "up to $5,000" passed (9-0).
    • Scope Expansion: Motion to amend the definition of "administrative action" to include matters before the Planning Commission and boards with appointment/removal authority passed (9-0).
  • Passed:
    • Motion to adopt Bill 100 passed.
    • Motion to replace with CD1 version passed.
    • Motion to adopt CD1 as amended passed (8-0, with Councilmember Paltin briefly offline).
    • Final Vote: The full council package on Bill 100 (2026), as amended, was recommended for passage on first reading (votes recorded as 9-0 and 8-0).
  • Next Steps: Bill 100 will proceed to the full Council for a first reading vote.

• Cost of Government Commission Report

  • Action: No formal action was taken.
  • Outcome: The committee received the report as information. Councilmembers indicated an appetite for future reforms based on the findings.