Regular quarterly listings of city personal services contracts reported to the City Council since the beginning of 2005 have been altered to remove all names before being disclosed to the public despite a state law requiring details of such contracts to be available for inspection and copying . [see Section 92-F(a)(10)]

The reports are prepared by the city’s Department of Human Resources and submitted to the City Council as required by a resolution adopted by council in December 1997.

Personal services contracts provide a way to fill temporary positions of less than a year without going through civil service hiring procedures, but bypassing standard procedures can open the door to abuse.

Resolution 97-319 expressed concern about favoritism in hiring and said disclosure of contract details, including the names of contract recipients, was “necessary for the Council to exercise its oversight regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of the City Administration’s use of the personal services contracting authority….”

It followed the council’s passage and subsequent veto override of Ordinance 97-54, which set out even stricter disclosure requirements for all personal services contracts. Mayor Jeremy Harris’ administration objected, saying that the ordinance violated some provisions of the City Charter.

Resolution 97-319 was a compromise which provided for public disclosure without having to resolve the dispute over whether or not there was a conflict with the charter.

The resolution was introduced by then-Council members Mufi Hannemann and John Henry Felix, with the backing of Duke Bainum, then budget committee chair.

When transmitted to the council, the reports include the name of each contract recipient and other contract details, including job title, department, source of funds, salary or amount paid, whether full or part time, and whether the contract is new or a renewal.

In 2004-2005, there were 1,909 people employed by the city under personal services contracts, making up 20 percent of the city workforce, according to a city audit.

The most recent listing, covering the three months ending June 30, 2009, is 54 pages long, with contracts ranging from summer recreation aides making $10.55 an hour to transit project officials with at least one earning well over $100,000 annually.

But the names of those working under these personal services contracts do not appear in the version of the reports entered into the city’s Docushare system, which makes city records available to the general public.

There is no indication in the public report that any information has been deleted.

The transmittal letter, signed by Human Resources Director Ken Nakamatsu, states: “All requested data fields are included and most are self-evident but a few may require some clarification.”

The same transmittal letter, stamped and identified as Departmental Communication 627, accompanies both versions of the report–the complete version submitted to the City Council and the edited version, without names, disclosed to the public. It is unclear how both documents can be referred to by the same document number, or under what authority the names have been removed.

All of the listings prepared prior to the election of Mayor Mufi Hannemann in 2004 were released to the public with the names of contract recipients included. That practice ended abruptly with Hannemann’s election in November 2004.

For example, the report for the period July-September 2004, available through the city Docushare system, contains the complete list of names.

However, beginning with the first listing prepared by the Hannemann administration, covering the three months ending December 31, 2004, names were no longer reported in the version made available to the public.

Could this quiet substitution of an edited document for the actual original constitute “tampering with a government record”, which is prohibited by state law?

Section 710-1017 HRS provides, in part:

(1) A person commits the offense of tampering with a government record if:

(a) The person knowingly and falsely makes, completes, or alters, or knowingly makes a false entry in, a written instrument which is or purports to be a government record or a true copy thereof; or

(b) The person knowingly presents or uses a written instrument which is or purports to be a government record or a true copy thereof, knowing that it has been falsely made, completed, or altered, or that a false entry has been made therein, with intent that it be taken as genuine; or

According to accompanying legal commentary:

This section is intended to penalize conduct which undermines confidence in the accuracy of public records. The accuracy of public records is essential to efficient public administration and, beyond the immediate context of public administration, the government has an interest in protecting public confidence in its records.

A February 2006 audit of the city’s personal services contract procedures termed the quarterly reports “inadequate”, and said “the reports lack meaningful information.”

According to the audit:

Personal services contracts are perceived as rewarding political insiders. We found that former elected officials on the city payroll through personal services contracts and that other select individuals are awarded lucrative contract positions, some with questionable credentials.

A Star-Bulletin story at the time reported:

Former Councilman Steve Holmes received personal services contracts under the Harris administration, and former Council Chairman John DeSoto and former state Sen. Milton Holt, who served about six months in prison after pleading guilty to a federal mail fraud charge, received contracts under Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s administration.

The audit also concluded city departments “virtually ignored” provisions of the city charter requiring personal services contracts to be temporary, not exceeding one year, and only used where “recruitment through normal civil service procedures is not practicable.”