The Kealoha mailbox jury delivered its unanimous verdict after just one full day of deliberations. Barely enough time to run through the list of charges once or twice, and then fill out the forms. One acquittal, the other four defendants convicted of conspiracy and the underlying obstruction charges.

What does this mean?

Well, although this has been billed as perhaps the biggest corruption case in Hawaii history, it seems to me that while this was unusual in its breadth, it wasn’t very deep. By the end of the trial, there seemed to be general consensus that Katherine Kealoha was the linchpin in the conspiracy, and her motives as presented by prosecutors had to do personal finances, a family feud revolving around her handling (or mishandling) of money, and then using power and position to cover her actions and discourage those who questioned.

But as presented to the jury, this wasn’t a deep conspiracy touching on systemic issues. Those in key positions in the structure of political power weren’t implicated, beyond the Kealohas, clearly a power couple.

These charges weren’t about privileged or powerful interest groups manipulating the system, or manipulating key actors, to get their way. The chief wasn’t taking payoffs, nor was his wife, as far as we know from this case. Although the public record includes allegations that Katherine Kealoha intervened in criminal proceedings on behalf of at least two people (one, a young electrician, and the other a nightclub owner, both involved in traffic offenses), this case didn’t present evidence of broader “money talks and B.S. walks” kind of corruption.

The mayor says it’s time to “move on.”

I say, not so fast!

Earlier in the mailbox theft conspiracy, frame job, and coverup, the system was actually working. Complaints, apparently about the misuse of police resources for a personal case, were made to the Honolulu Ethics Commission.

By all accounts, the city ethics commission staff, including its former director and investigator, were on the trail of the abuse of power and misuse of police resources.

That’s where the system of checks and balances broke down. No, I take that back. It didn’t break down. It was sabotaged by the Caldwell administration.

The ethics investigation of the Kealoha matter was effectively quashed when its top staff were essentially fired after the makeup of the commission changed.

We need to go back and look a lot harder at the commission’s decision to muzzle, and then force out, its executive director and investigator, the circumstances around that decision, and how and by whom these decisions were made. Only then can we start to address what needs to be done to correct the situation.

It’s important to keep in mind that putting a lid on the commission’s investigation of the Kealoha case wasn’t a one-off thing. It followed several tense years during which Mayor Caldwell’s administration had been blocking the commission from doing its work, starving its budget, stonewalling its attempts to collect evidence and obtain city records, etc., etc.

Sacking the director and investigator was just the end of an extended period during which the administration tried its best to stonewall ongoing ethics investigations.

Looking back, this administration–as previous ones–had its people on the commission, individuals who straddled both the mayor’s campaign and the commission’s internal decisions. From the outside, it certainly appeared the administration had long attempted to control, constrain, limit, or quash certain commission investigations. For whose benefit, or at whose request, we don’t really know.

I suspect that we’ll be learning more as this continues to play out.

See: Prior posts on iLind.net

“City Ethics Chair resigns to avoid violation of ban on political activities,” May 17, 2010

“City draws on same law firm for new Ethics Commission member,” July 9, 2010.

Honolulu Ethics Commission chairman Lex Smith resigned earlier this year because his increased involvement in Managing Director Kirk Caldwell’s mayoral campaign would have violated legal restrictions on political activity by commission members.

New members have now been appointed to the commission to fill Smith’s seat and other vacancies. Among the new members is Charles Gall, a partner in the law firm of Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda, the same firm where Smith is a partner.

While I have no doubt about Gall’s personal and professional qualifications to serve on the commission, there are obviously some concerns raised by this appointment.

“Mayor can’t win feud with Ethics Commission,” Dec. 10, 2013

I can’t fathom what Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration thinks it can gain from its ongoing attempts to circumvent, intimidate, or undermine the county’s ethics commission.

“Ethics probe of road supervisor led to indictment,” Dec 11, 2013.

Did you catch the Hawaii News Now report last night on the indictment of a former city roads supervisor for felony theft? The supervisor allegedly would regularly report for work but then return home, resulting in taking pay for hours not worked (“Former supervisor with the city indicted on felony charge“).

This criminal case follows a City Ethics Commission investigation that resulted in the supervisor, Patrick Costa, losing his job.

“Give credit to a city employee who blew the whistle,” says Chuck Totto, Executive Director of the City Ethics Commission.

“We would have never known about it (without that person),” says Totto.

After the investigation was launched, witnesses reported that Costa had been doing this for years.

Wait a minute. Didn’t Costa have a boss? Who was it? Who did that boss report to? Are we supposed to believe that his absence was never noted by a supervisor or anyone else in authority? If it wasn’t, then the much bigger question is why the supervisor didn’t know, and the same question has to be asked up the chain of authority in the city. Or perhaps Costa and others had some form of political clout that they used to their benefit? This is all background the public would benefit from knowing.

“Honolulu Ethics Commission’s media policy gets no support,” July 5, 2015

According to a report by Keoki Kerr at Hawaii News Now, the media policy is a result of a disagreement over how to answer questions concerning the possibility that undisclosed conflicts of City Council members could void key votes authorizing the Honolulu rail project (“Ethics Commission clamps down on director who says rail votes might be thrown out“).

“Why did the city ethics commission dismiss all ethics charges against three council members?,” Oct 29, 2015

The dismissal was a surprise, since the commission’s staff had worked on the case for over a year, developed over 1,000 pages of documentary evidence, and identified a long list of times each of the three had allegedly violated ethics laws.

Here’s a short summary of the result: They beat the rap on technicalities and a good attorney to exploit them.

The good attorney is Colleen Hanabusa, former Senate President, Congresswoman, and now on the board of directors of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (which is managing the train project).

An interesting match-up, since the ethics charges, if upheld, could have resulted in a series of rail-related council votes to be declared null and void. That would have created quite a mess.

“Is more trouble brewing at the Honolulu Ethics Commission?” Oct 30, 2015.

These charges raised questions of whether a series of rail-related council votes would be considered valid if a majority of council members were later found to have improperly accepted gifts from lobbyists that weren’t publicly disclosed as potential conflicts. Although it seems unlikely that the rail project could have been stopped even if these votes were declared to be legally void, just the possibility posed political challenges for Mayor Kirk Caldwell.

The three council members were ably represented by former congresswoman and attorney, Colleen Hanabusa, recently appointed to the board of directors of the agency that manages the rail project.

Earlier, Caldwell’s recent appointees to the commission led the charge to institute a restrictive media policy that would have made it very difficult for the commission’s professional staff to communicate with the news media and the public.

See: Columns in Civil Beat

“Honolulu Ethics Commission Needs to Scrap Its New Anti-Media Policy,” June 30, 2015

The seven-member panel approved a new policy effectively muzzling the commission’s executive director, Chuck Totto, requiring him to seek approval before discussing decisions or opinions with the press. The commission would have the public believe this is a desirable way to promote public understanding of its sometimes complex and nuanced decisions.

But no one’s buying it.

“Ian Lind: Will Ruling In Council Case Derail Honolulu Ethics Enforcement?” Oct 28, 2015

The city Ethics Commission has released few details about why it dismissed charges against current and former council members, but the decisions could set dangerous precedents.

“Ian Lind: It Turns Out We Owe Chuck Totto A Big Thank-You,” Nov 2, 2017

In May 2015, six months after the mailbox theft case against Puana was thrown out of court and corruption allegations submitted to the FBI by Puana’s federal defender, Hawaii News Now reported Totto was investigating whether Chief Kealoha had violated the city’s ethics code by assigning officers from the elite CIU to investigate the alleged mailbox theft. This investigation apparently expanded to include allegations against Katherine Kealoha, a supervising attorney in County Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro’s office.

While this exceedingly complex and politically sensitive investigation was underway, Totto was already under intense pressure from the administration of Mayor Kirk Caldwell, which had been squeezing the agency’s budget, refusing to cooperate with ethics investigations and challenging the commission’s primary authority to pursue ethics complaints involving city agencies and employees.

Observers traced the bad blood between Caldwell and the commission back to Totto’s investigation of private contributions to the mayor’s inaugural luau after his election in 2012. The commission found $381,000 in prohibited contributions to the event came from private parties with matters pending before they city. However, the commission concluded Caldwell had not violated the ethics laws because there were no clear guidelines in place at the time concerning such public events.