Council advances ethics bill; committee backs first comprehensive lobbyist rules for Maui County

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, while members amended the bill to drop a retroactive provision. Bill 55 moves on to second and final reading on Nov. 13.

Separately, the Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee voted 9-0 Tuesday 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.

Bill 100 (2026) would amend Section 2.56.040 of the Maui County Code. If the full Council passes it on first and second reading and Mayor Richard Bissen signs it, the county would adopt comprehensive lobbyist regulations for the first time for the county.

“Maui County remains the only jurisdiction in Hawaiʻi without comprehensive lobbyist rules,” Board of Ethics Executive Director Lauren Akitake told the committee Tuesday.

“Lobbying itself is not improper,” she 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,” Akitake said.

The bill establishes objective registration thresholds and clear reporting requirements so individuals can readily determine when registration is required, and the public can understand who is seeking to influence county decisions, she said.

“Transparency benefits everyone,” she added.

Committee Chair Kauanoe Batangan, who introduced the bill, said it continues the committee’s commitment to “strengthening good governance, ethical standards, and public confidence in Maui County government.”

Batangan placed the bill within a larger context of county oversight. In his opening remarks, he said the committee has spent recent meetings taking “a hard, proactive look” at those oversight frameworks, including special counsel reports on active litigation, Resolution 26-99 on counsel review of legal invoices, and the Maui County Fraud Risk Assessment prepared by Spire Hawaiʻi LLP for the Office of the County Auditor.

“Those previous discussions highlighted clear systemic gaps, showing us where internal safeguards must be tightened and where public trust requires reinforcement through clear structural rules,” he said.

Outdated list, few requirements

Current county law requires lobbyists to file a certified statement with the Board of Ethics giving their name, address, phone number and lobbying subject matter before appearing before a legislative or executive body.

In an Aug. 11 letter to Batangan, Akitake wrote that the lack of rules has left the county’s lobbyist list likely outdated.

The list includes people who registered as far back as 2000, and the office has no record of a comprehensive review to confirm whether they remain active, she said. Current rules do not require lobbyists to renew their registrations. They also provide no process for a lobbyist who stops lobbying but never files a termination notice, and names are moved to an inactive list but never removed from the rolls, according to her letter. Bill 100 would require biennial renewal.

The Board of Ethics has begun reviewing the existing list, Akitake said in a written response to questions from Maui Now. The review has so far moved 22 people from the active to the inactive list. On Sept. 1, the list had 229 active and 104 inactive registrants. It now has 207 active and 126 inactive. The updated list will be posted on the Board of Ethics website.

Bill 100 details

The bill includes a Council legislative finding that says “the identity and expenditures of persons who seek to influence the actions of public officials—including Councilmembers, the Mayor, and other County officers—should be a matter of public record. Good governance is promoted by increasing transparency in the lobbying process, enhancing public confidence in the integrity of local government, and ensuring that the public’s interests are not subordinate to special interests.”

Under Bill 100, an individual would be a “lobbyist” if he or she:

• Receives or expects to receive $1,000 or more in compensation in a calendar year for lobbying, or
• Lobbies for pay on behalf of another person for more than five hours in a month or more than 10 hours in a calendar year, or spends $1,000 or more on lobbying in a reporting period.

Lobbyists would register with the Board of Ethics within five days of becoming a lobbyist. They would disclose who they work for and the subject areas they expect to lobby on, and provide written authorization from each client or employer. Registration would be renewed every two years, starting Oct. 1, 2029. Lobbyists would also have to file a termination notice within 10 days of stopping, and a lobbyist’s employer could file the notice if the lobbyist fails to.

Lobbyists, and anyone who spends $1,000 or more on lobbying or hires a lobbyist, would file expenditure statements twice a year, on July 31 and Jan. 31. The statements would itemize spending by category, including media advertising, consultants, meals and gifts, and identify the bills or other actions the filer sought to influence. The Board of Ethics would post the filings online for at least six years.

The bill bars lobbyists from accepting payment contingent on the outcome of legislation or administrative action. It also bars lobbyists, and others required to file spending statements, from giving county officers or employees gifts that Section 10-4 of the Maui County Charter prohibits.

It exempts people representing only themselves, government officials acting in their official capacity, news media, experts who appear occasionally at the request of the Council or an agency, and attorneys advising clients, unless they otherwise meet the definition of a lobbyist. Nonprofit employees who spend fewer than 10 hours a month lobbying on a county grant application are also excluded.

Akitake said the bill draws heavily from the state’s roughly 50-year-old lobbyist framework, adapted for Maui County government needs. She said the bill is “intended to increase transparency without restricting the public’s ability to communicate with or advocate before government.”

The bill would take effect July 1, 2027.

To implement the bill, the Board of Ethics will need administrative rules and electronic filing forms in place by that date, Akitake said.

Committee changes

The committee worked from a revised version of the bill (Committee Draft 1) proposed by Batangan. According to his amendment summary form, it removes references to training requirements. Akitake said the Board of Ethics can and will still provide education and guidance to lobbyists on the registration and disclosure requirements, and will assess as the program is implemented whether additional educational measures are needed.

Also, the revised bill expands “legislative action” to cover matters before Council committees, and it clarifies that the self-representation exception does not cover individuals representing another person before an executive-branch agency. The bill changes the penalty language to refer to Section 2.56.010 of the County Code rather than set a $5,000 fine.

Deputy Corporation Counsel Caleb Rowe said county attorneys were initially “a little bit concerned” that a $5,000 fine would exceed the Council’s authority under the charter. They now believe the Council has discretion to set the fine at $5,000, he said.

Committee members then voted 9-0 to restore a maximum administrative fine of $5,000 per violation, the same ceiling as the state’s penalty for lobbyist violations, according to Akitake.

As amended, the bill says a person who “knowingly violates” the section is subject to a fine imposed by the Board of Ethics of up to $5,000 for each violation, according to the Office of Council Services. Fines can be assessed only after a complaint and a formal hearing under the board’s administrative rules.

Council Member Keani Rawlins-Fernandez asked whether lobbyists who influence decisions before boards and commissions, particularly the Planning Commission, would be covered. After a recess during which attorneys conferred, the committee voted unanimously to expand the definition of “administrative action.”

It now includes matters the Council refers to the planning commissions and actions to appoint or remove department heads that are pending before boards and commissions with that authority.

Kristine Tsukiyama, a staff attorney with the Board of Ethics, said that, under the bill’s definition of “lobbying,” communicating with any county officer or employee, including board and commission members, falls within the ordinance.

Bill 100 advances to the full Council for the first of two readings before being forwarded to the mayor for final action. If the committee report is ready in time, the bill will be on the Nov. 13 full Council meeting agenda.

First reading passage of Bill 55

On Friday, the full Council passed Bill 55 on first reading, 9-0. It revises the penalties for violations of Maui County’s Code of Ethics to an administrative fine of up to $1,000 for each violation of the ethics article of the County Charter or of Chapter 2.56 of the County Code.

The measure also allows the Board of Ethics to retain jurisdiction to pursue violations by any person, including current or former officers and employees, for six years after the alleged violation occurred, up from one year. If a violation was concealed by fraud or another device, the six years would start from when it was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.

Testifying Friday in support of the bill, Akitake said that, under current rules, the board loses the ability to pursue ethics matters when the one-year limit expires or when an employee has left county service. Bill 55 “would ensure that the board has a reasonable opportunity to address potential ethics violations, including when an individual is no longer employed with the county,” she said.

The version before the Council differs from the one the GREAT Committee took up July 28, Akitake said. After that meeting, Corporation Counsel and the Office of Council Services raised concerns, and the retroactivity provision the board had originally requested was removed.

She polled board members, and they told her they would support dropping the retroactivity provision if necessary to advance the rest of the bill, she said. “Conviction” was changed to “adjudication” and “fine” to “administrative fine” to clarify the civil nature of the provision.

Later, the Council unanimously adopted amendments proposed by Batangan that extend the bill to violations of Chapter 2.56, replace “conviction” with “adjudication,” specify that penalties are “administrative fines,” simplify the board’s jurisdictional language and remove a clause that would have applied the changes retroactively.

Bill 100’s committee draft had referred to the penalties in Section 2.56.010, the section Bill 55 amends, before the committee restored the $5,000 maximum.

Bill 55 would cap fines for violations of Chapter 2.56, which includes the lobbyist section Bill 100 amends, at $1,000. Asked how the two provisions would work together, the Office of Council Services said the committee’s intent is for the $5,000 maximum to apply to lobbying violations.

Bill 55 returns to the Council for second and final reading on Nov. 13.

Another measure, Bill 99, would establish an anti-nepotism policy for Maui County. That bill remains pending in committee.