The idea of an ombudsman is simply to provide someone with authority who can intervene on behalf of regular people who run into a public agency or employee acting like a petty tyrant, being rude, unreasonable, or unfair. It’s very appealing, and a life-saver if you’re locked in one of those crazy disputes when you are exhausted and ready to concede that no matter how right you are, “you can’t fight city hall.”

But it’s not a perfect world. The ombudsman’s jurisdiction is limited by law, so there are issues that they can’t touch. And things happen. Communication issues. Heavy workloads. Particularly obstinate agencies.

So how is the ombudsman doing in Hawaii after more than a half-century?

Back at the beginning of 2013, I wrote a column about the Office of the Ombudsman for Civil Beat.

Not much has changed over the intervening years.

Problem: Who da guy?

At that time, Ombudsman Robin Matsunaga acknowledged that many people had never heard of his agency.

“Much of the public doesn’t know about what we do, they don’t know we exist, and don’t know how to use us,” he told me in an interview at that time.

The agency’s limited budget isn’t sufficient to support a vigorous outreach program.

Problem: All bark, little bite

And even when the office investigates and sustains a complaint, it lacks the “teeth” to force state and county departments to admit the error and follow the ombudsman’s recommendations to correct the situation.

While the ombudsman does not have the power to compel agencies to follow its advice or overturn agency decisions, Matsunaga said his office has been very successful at gaining agency compliance, although at times it can be a long process.

“We don’t have teeth, but we can gum them to death,” he said. “My staff are real tenacious. When we’re sure of our position, we will continue to try and persuade them.”

That situation appears unchanged today.

It can’t be a comfortable position to be in.

Problem: Secret or not?

The ombudsman’s office is required to navigate a precarious boundary between legally-required secrecy, and its ultimate sanction, the power to embarrass an agency by going public with critical findings.

The obligation to keep matters secret is spelled out in statute (Chapter 96 Hawaii Revised Statutes).

§96-9 Investigation procedures.

(a) In an investigation, the ombudsman may make inquiries and obtain information as the ombudsman thinks fit, enter without notice to inspect the premises of an agency, and hold private hearings.
(b) The ombudsman is required to maintain secrecy in respect to all matters and the identities of the complainants or witnesses coming before the ombudsman except so far as disclosures may be necessary to enable the ombudsman to carry out the ombudsman’s duties and to support the ombudsman’s recommendations.

But elsewhere in the same statute is a broad but ill-defined exception to this statutory secrecy.

§96-13 Publication of recommendations. After a reasonable time has elapsed, the ombudsman may present the ombudsman’s opinion and recommendations to the governor, the legislature, the public, or any of these. The ombudsman shall include with this opinion any reply made by the agency.

The ombudsman has generally said that it’s goal is to get agencies to comply with its recommendations, no matter how long or how fiercely they might have resisted. As long as the agencies eventually give in, it’s chalked up as a “win” for the ombudsman.

The ombudsman is also authorized to seek legislation to correct problems that it identifies, but it isn’t clear whether it has ever proposed such legislation.

Problem: Staffing

In September 1983, the Office of the Ombudsman had a staff of 11, including Ombudsman Herman Doi, six analysts who investigate complaints, and four secretaries. An additional authorized position for Doi’s first assistant was authorized but vacant due to a retirement.

Two decades later, the ombudsman’s annual report for the 2003-2004 fiscal year noted a staff of 15, including Ombudsman Robin Matsunaga, his first assistant, eight analysts, and five support staff.

Another 20 years later, at the end of the 2024 fiscal year, the position count was down to 13, consisting of Ombudsman Matsunaga, his first assistant, seven analysts, and four support staff. One additional position was unfilled.

The budget passed by the Legislature this year maintains the ombudsman’s staff at 14 authorized positions.

During testimony on the ombudsman’s budget earlier this year, Matsunaga described ongoing staffing issues.

…it has become more difficult to retain qualified, trained employees over the past few years. While there is no way to prevent employees from retiring, I am concerned about the number of employees who have left the office to work at another State or County agency, or in the private sector, based in large part to the higher salaries they would receive. My office expends a significant amount of time and other resources to train staff to perform their duties, especially in conducting impartial investigations in a thorough and sound manner. It is clear to me that other agencies and private companies recognize the investigative and analytical skills that my staff have, and how much they can contribute to the mission and purpose of their agency or company. I believe that in order to stop this trend, I need to be able to pay my staff salaries that are competitive with the salaries paid by other agencies and companies to their employees who have similar skills and knowledge.

The turnover has been documented in recent annual reports. During the 2023-2024 fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, three of the agencies seven analysts resigned, two after less than four months on the job. The other had been with the ombudsman’s office for four years, but left for job with another department.

There was similar turnover the prior year, FY 2022-2023, with three analysts resigning. Two of them had been hired just a year earlier.