As expected, in a Civil Beat editorial, Ethics Board Vice-Chair Lilly grossly mischaracterizes the letter and intent of the 2024 Charter Amendment, Corp Counsel's Sunshine and ethical violations, the two ongoing OIP investigations into Corp Counsel's conflicted participations in executive sessions - which Corp Counsel is obstructing, and much more...

New Petition: https://c.org/9gV2ZvKtND
Maui Causes’ petition demand for the resignations of Vice Chair Lilly, Chair Sturdevant, and Director Akitake seeks to honor the voter mandate for real independence.

Until Board practices align with that mandate, calls for accountability are not only reasonable - they are necessary.

Lilly’s assertions conflict with the plain language and voter intent of the 2024 Charter amendment.

The amendment was not about staffing — it was about independence:

The Charter amendment’s text is explicit: it authorizes independent staff and provides that the Board’s attorneys "may advise the board independently of the Department of the Corporation Counsel, notwithstanding Charter Section 8‑2.3.” that otherwise governs Corp Counsel’s advisory role.

That language exists precisely because voters and policymakers were concerned about conflicts of interest when the same office advises the Ethics Board while also representing the officials and departments subject to ethics oversight.

That clause exists to remove Corporation Counsel from internal ethics decision-making because of longstanding conflicts created when the same office advises the Board while representing the officials and departments subject to ethics complaints.

Corp Counsel continues to exceed its proper role:
To mislead you, Vice‑Chair Lilly - who should know better - intentionally conflates two legally distinct functions: representation and advice. No one disputes that, unless conflicted out, Corp Counsel represents County agencies in external litigation.

What the Charter amendment deliberately changed is who advises the Ethics Board internally when evaluating complaints, drafting rules, determining probable cause, and deliberating in executive session.

Gag rules are not harmless:
A suppressive rule left on the books - even with the hollow promise that it will not be enforced - undermines due process and trust.  Was it Corp Counsel that wrote that unconstitutional rule? Why would an ethics board, dedicated to the public trust, ever even consider such a fascist dictate?

Transparency concerns remain unresolved:

While the OIP may not operate like a court with automatic subpoena power, it does have a formal oversight role, issues opinions, and can require a serious legal response when agencies refuse records.

The OIP has opened two formal investigations into Corp Counsel’s participation in Ethics Board and County Council executive sessions and requested related records. Corp Counsel is refusing to provide transcripts, even for confidential in-camera review, inviting further litigation and the waste of public funds. If Corp Counsel had nothing to hide, why are they hiding from the OIP?

Corp Counsel has not consistently recused itself when conflicts exist:
In the Salem litigation, the 2nd Circuit barred Corp Counsel from representing the County because it was implicated in the underlying issues, forcing the County to retain outside counsel at a cost exceeding $1 million so far. 

Corp Counsel's procurement of the law firm KSG was itself improper, as they never obtained the requisite ethics conflict clearance from the Board of Ethics, which would have exposed a deep conflict of interest with that law firm and Chris Salem. 

That ruling required heightened separation. Yet Deputy Corp Counsel Caleb Rowe participated in Ethics Board executive session deliberations regarding Mr. Salem’s related complaints against the County Auditor. That was not representation — it was conflicted internal participation.

Conflicted Appearance by Outside Attorney David Nakamura:
Though Lilly does not mention it, it is also important to address the role of David Nakamura, who appeared before the Ethics Board and offered legal conclusions on matters directly related to the County Auditor and ongoing ethics issues. At the time, Mr. Nakamura was not properly retained to represent the County and was, in fact, serving as private counsel to the County Auditor, with prior involvement in matters tied to the very issues under review.

Despite this clear conflict, under Caleb Rowe's advisement, the Ethics Board accepted Mr. Nakamura’s bogus legal opinions, allowing a privately retained, conflicted attorney to influence the Board’s deliberations.

This episode underscores precisely why voters approved the 2024 Charter amendment: to prevent conflicted legal actors — whether from Corporation Counsel or outside counsel — from shaping Ethics Board decision‑making.

This criticism reflects structural failure, not resistance to reform.

Lilly's lies on CIVIL BEAT:  https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/01/the-maui-county-board-of-ethics-has-been-transformed