Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Welcome, everyone. Good morning. This is the Judiciary Committee. We have two agendas today.

The first is at 09:30. This is decision making only on two judicial nominations that we heard. I can't remember when we heard you guys yesterday. Sorry. First up on this one is governor's message 796 submitting for consideration and confirmation of circuit court judge of the circuit court of the second circuit to Maui County, gubernatorial appointee Annalisa and Bernard Lee for a term to expire in ten years.

The rec recommendation on GM 796 is to consent. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

On GM 796, Chair's recommendation is to consent. Chair Rose?

Aye.

Vice Chair with aye. Senator Chang? Aye. Senator San Buenaventura? Excused.

Excused. Senator Owa? Aye. Measure is adopted.

Great. Thank you. Congratulations. The second item on the agenda is G M 797, submitting for consideration and confirmation as circuit court judge of the circuit of the fifth circuit island of, County Of Kauai. Gubernatorial appointee Michael K.

Soon for term to expire in ten years. Also on this one, the recommendation is to consent. Questions or concerns? If not, vice chair.

On g m 797, the recommendation is to consent. Any noes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Congratulations. And this this agenda is adjourned.

Okay. Thank you. Congratulations. And this this agenda is adjourned.

Welcome, everyone, to the judicial committee hearing. This is our nine forty agenda on Wednesday, April 22 here in 02:25. This agenda has governor's message eight zero one, submitting for consideration confirmation as Chief Justice of the Hawaii State Supreme Court gubernatorial appointee Vladimir Pete Devens for a term to expire in ten years. We do have a two minute time limit on testimony both on Zoom and in person.

Alright.

If we have a catastrophic, Zoom failure, we'll try again on Friday, April 24 at 10:25 in the same room, 225.

If you're we won't be voting today on this nomination. Well, that will be at 10:00 10AM on Friday, April 24, this in this room, 225. Alright. First up on GM's 8 zero one is Will Cain, senior adviser to the governor. Good morning.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Will Kane, office of the governor. I'm sure there's a the people behind me will be much better able to, describe all the great things about Justice Devens. But on behalf of the governor, we just want to say first to the committee, thank you for your consideration of him for the chief justice role.

And, you know, he he has, served for a short time on the on the court, but I think even in that time, he's already had an amazing impact and, his experience in the field, will add greatly to to this and and especially as the chief justice.

So I'm here for any questions and Mahalo again.

Thank you very much. Next up is Steve Alm, prosecuting attorney sitting in County Honolulu. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, members of the committee. I'm Steve Alm, the Honolulu prosecutor. I'm here in strong support of Justice Devens. He and I were on opposite sides on certain issues when he was in private practice, And, I've agreed with some of the decision, you know, his decisions when he was on the Supreme Court and have disagreed with others. But I think he's got a great background for this.

Working at the police department, he saw people up front. He saw people victims working with him. And, Justice Devens is smart. He's honest. He's strong, and he's decisive.

And I think that's what the judiciary will need. And he'll do a great job in it, so I'm standing in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Michael Formby, managing director sitting in County Of Honolulu in support. Evan Oye, executive director for Hawaii Association for Justice. In support. Thank you.

Next is Kalani Werner, State Director for UP, United Public Workers. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard, members of the committee, Kamakana Kaimuloa, speaking on behalf of State Director, Kalani Werner. You have our testimony in strong support, so I'll just add a few other comments. As you can imagine, relations between an employer and the exclusive representative is adversarial by by its very nature. However, prior to his retirement, UPW had developed a strong working relationship with Chief Justice Breckenwold and his staff.

That was critical to some of the biggest challenges we had encountered, particularly THP, which they were willing to settle and one of the first one to do so. We believe that Justice Devens, by his background, he understands the challenges that UPW members face as well as he understands our history. And so we believe that he could pick up where chief justice rect de Walpin left off, and that's one of the main reason that we support his confirmation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Randy Perreira, executive director Hawaii Government Employees Association. Excuse me. Good morning.

Morning. Jared, members, my name is Randy Perreira. I'm the executive director of the HGEA and president of the Hawaii State AFL CIO, so I'll spare some time and testify on behalf of both.

We are in complete and unequivocal support of Justice Devens' nomination, and I'll echo the words of the UPW in suggesting that our testimony is not only going to the character of this individual, but also our belief that he is the best suited to serve as the administrator the judiciary where we represent the great majority of employees. And, certainly, I'll be willing to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Daniel Padilla for president of Hawaii Filipino Lawyers Association. In support, Ilima Lei McFarland founder for Nawaheny Toa Foundation. Also in support, George T George Paris for Iron Workers Stabilization Fund, local 06:25 morning or his designee morning.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. My name is Cliff Laboy. I am representing t George Paris and the Ironworkers Stabilization Fund and also the Sheet Metal Union, Arthur Tolentino. We submitted our testimony. We strongly support this this chief justice position.

He has come across and done a lot of good things with his background, his sound judgment, and all of that. I only wish we could have had this, hearing on a weekend because if you look behind me, these people represent over a 100,000 other people that would strongly support this. So, we ask you for please get this thing done, pass it through, and if you have any questions, let us know.

Okay. Thank you. Next is, Mark Recktenwald, retired chief justice. Good morning.

Alright. Good morning, chair Gabbard. I'm sorry. Chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard, members of the committee. You think I wouldn't be nervous at this point, but I am because it's such an important day.

And I'm very, very grateful and honored to be here to testify in strong support of Justice Devens for the position of Chief Justice. You know, he has a a lot of qualities I think will make him a wonderful Chief Justice. He's hardworking. He's smart. He's got, I think, three decades of experience as a litigator.

He was out in the trenches as a practicing lawyer, for all those thirty years. So he knows the law inside and out. He knows how to he knows how to understand a case, analyze it, and, see both sides. I think his experience as a labor lawyer is particularly relevant. He's one of the foremost labor lawyers in our state, and I used to practice in that area as well.

And to me, a really good labor lawyer, advocates hard for their clients, but also understands, how to understand, how to see what the other side is, where the other side is coming from and be able to come to a resolution that's fair. And I think that's really what, Justice Devens is about. When he came to the court, I got to know him very, very well.

Obviously before that, I knew him well too, because he had done an awful lot in our community to support, the bar, to have good relations bar and the Hawaii State Bar Association in support of access to justice. And then when he came to the court, I met a colleague who was a wonderful, supportive colleague, somebody who worked incredibly hard.

That's a, if I had to say one thing about this man, I'd say one of the hardest workers I've ever seen. He prepares well, he listens to both sides when we have oral argument, he makes the call, and then he goes and he writes really good opinions and he writes them in a timely manner. And he also knows how to understand our judiciary, work with people in the judiciary.

I had assigned him to lead a committee on artificial intelligence, which is a really big endeavor, and he and his, co chair did a wonderful job of that. So I'm here in strong support of, justice Devens for this position.

Thank you very much. Next up is Robert Diaz Kim, retired chief administrative judge in the third circuit. Good morning.

Good morning, chair Rhodes, vice chair Gabbard. Every ten years, there's an important decision that needs to be made, and today is that day determining who is gonna be the chief justice of the third branch of government in the state of Hawaii. As a chief judge, I worked closely with retired chief justice Recktenwald. I saw firsthand what the job requires. It's a seven day a week, ten year job that justice Evans is aptly suited to serve.

It's a it's a hard job, and he stepped up, and I believe he will do an excellent job. There are many Although I'm speaking as a private citizen, I speak to many judges. I speak to people, staff members and the like, and they are looking forward to working with the nominee justice Evans. And so I humbly and respectfully request you support the judiciary with new leadership that will support CJ Recktenwald's initiatives and carry us into the next decade. I can answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Keani Alapa. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Keani Alapa, and I'm a law partner at Alapa & Otake. Vlad gave me my start in this profession and served as my mentor, friend, and law partner for over a decade. He hired me as a summer law clerk after my first year of law school, and And that first experience working for him changed the course of my life and my career. I did not come into law polished.

I'm a country boy from the North Shore. I stumbled into college because of football, and I stumbled into law school on a whim. I came into this profession rough around the edges with no real connection to the law. Vlad taught me that hard work is a great equalizer, and he did not just say it, he lived it. True mentorship and the practice of law, especially in Hawaii, is becoming far too rare.

But Vlad took it upon himself to truly mentor me. He spent countless hours investing in me when he did not have to. He would stay up until three in the morning revising my motions, then take the time the next day to explain his edits so that I could learn from them. He sat through all of my depositions, oral arguments, arbitration, and other proceedings. And afterward, he gave me honest, thoughtful feedback on how to improve.

Through all of it, he taught me that every client deserves your full effort, whether the case is big or small, that your word is your bond, and once your credibility is gone, it is gone. And that zealous advocacy does not mean being a bully. You can fight hard for your clients, stay within the rules, and still treat people with decency and respect.

I worked for Vlad for more than a decade representing working families, public unions, injured workers, and people going through some of the hardest times in their lives. He understood that you cannot truly represent a client well unless you know them as a person, earn their trust, and understand what matters to mo matters most to them.

When Vlad left private practice for the bench, it was bittersweet for me. I lost my mentor, my partner, and one of my closest friends, but Hawaii gained the justice with deep roots here. A real understanding of the people and communities our court serve, and a clear sense of what this profession should be.

If he has confirmed that she as chief justice, our judiciary will be led by someone who knows this community, cares deeply about the practice of law, is a natural mentor, and will strengthen both the courts and the public's trust in them. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thanks very much. Next up is, Chuck Friedman. Good morning.

Morning, members. Morning, chair.

Sorry. I'm an old man.

Last time I testified in this room, I was testifying on election law for Gene King, and Tony Chang was the chair. That was the last time I was here. Honorable committee I'm testifying against. My objections stem from the concentration of power by the Hawaii State Carpenters Union in all three branches of our government with this appointment. Details are in my written testimony.

I hope you'll read them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have watched this happen with the Carpenters Union, mostly in silence. It's time for the sirens to go off. I think you should ask Justice Devens questions like these if the huge Pacific Health and HMSA proposed partnership were litigated up and heard at the Supreme Court, which I think we all expect will happen, would your associations with the union, which I understand is an investor in Straub, cause you to recuse yourself?

If the union's super PAC, number two, if the union super PAC continues to try to buy elections and their actions end up before you, yes or no, would you recuse yourself? And three, though you twice did not publicly disclose your business relationship, including four years on the board of the Carpenter Super PAC, be changed now. What a joke. You irrefutably had such a relationship.

Do you agree to recuse yourself from this connection of and and in any and all Carpenters Union cases which will come before the court.

We depend on the chief justice not only for their knowledge of law, but for their awareness. Is this nominee self aware? Does he understand that some of the ground he comes from and stands on is shaky and even toxic? Familiar ground he failed to disclose as was recently reported in civil beat. A former justice Okay.

Your your time has expired. Thank you very much. Next up is Stanley Roehrig on Zoom, maybe.

Thank you. President chair.

Good morning.

Hey, mister chairman. Can you hear me and see me, mister chairman? Yes.

Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Okay. My name is Stan Roehrig. I'm a lawyer in Hilo. In another life, I was in the legislature, and one of my close friends was, Mr. Paul Devons. He was a city and county attorney.

As the chairman of his Judiciary Committee, I spent many hours with him, and we talked about many things, including his son. And one of the things that impressed me with with Paul and with his son now is that these are local boys, and I'm a local boy lawyer from Manoa. And I think local boy lawyers are all minorities here in Hawaii, we're used to we're used to the bumps and grinds of fighting hard for our clients.

And just because we have a set of clients and we fight for them on on Monday, doesn't mean that that we let the bus roll over us on Friday when we represent somebody else against our former client. I don't think justice Edens is that shallow that he's not gonna respect the prior history of all the different groups of people that come before him as private counsel or when he's associate justice of Supreme Court.

This guy is right on the money. He has enough guts that he's gonna be a great leader for us, and now is the time, and we ought to get behind him. I appreciate your for your folks' attention and the opportunity to speak in his favor, and I wish you well, and I hope you vote for him. And I look forward to seeing him being the chief administrator of our judiciary. It's very important to us, especially as Macaulay lawyers who've been here our whole life.

We wanna see we wanna see the judiciary.

Thank you very much. Your time has expired. Thank you for coming. Next up is Kate Watanabe, financial secretary treasurer for Unite Here Local Five in support. Anna Tuya Sosopo, district rep and trustee for operating engineers Local three.

In support, Christian Fern, executive director for University of Hawaii Professional Assembling in support. Dustin Dawson, director for Hawaii and Longshore Division ILWU in support. Randy Pereira for AFL CIO will take your testimony and support from before. Osa Tuohy for president for Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. Rosalie Agas Yu for Hawaii Nurses Association, o p e I u local fifty in support.

Tony Baldomaro for IBEW twelve sixty in support. Lonnie Wong for common cause in opposition. Donna I mean, sorry. Don Falmoina for State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers. Come on up.

Morning. Good morning.

Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gavin, members of the committee. My name is Don Famuina, and I'm the president of the show for SHOPO. I bring to you the aloha of 2,500 members across the four counties of Hawaii in full support of justice Devens. Justice Devens has been SHOPO's the, SHOPO's legal counsel for a couple decades, and he's been paramount in the success of where SHOPO is today. I just wanted to share that that I've known this man.

I've seen his work ethics. He is just, he is kind, he's trustworthy, and this is the type of people that we need there to to ensure that things are are taken care of. And we just wanna be here to show our full support.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Blaine Kobayashi, retired judge for the second circuit in support. Melvin Fujino, retired judge for the third circuit in support. Gil Keith Agaran, former chair of this committee in support.

Carrie Tanaka in support. Lon Paresa in support. Patrick Wex, Wisparth in support. Ted H S Hong in support. Michael Uyasuye in support.

If any of you are here and you wanna testify, please jump up. Winton Winton Park in support. Ann Botticelli in opposition. Kevin Sumida in support. Kenneth Lawson in support.

Brent Kolbes in opposition. Coralie Matayoshi in support. Thomas Berger in support. Neli Awasa with comments. Derek Kobayashi in support.

Haley Chang in support. Rod Miley in support. Steve Tevis, I saw, I thought, in support. Deborah Kagawa Yogi in support. Levy K Ho'okano in support, and Tanari Maofala in support.

That is other than the HSBA representative, that's everyone who signed up on g m eight zero one. Would anyone else like to testify on g m eight zero one, either here or on Zoom? Yep. Please come on up.

Morning. Morning.

Morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, member of the committee. Brandon Kimura, administrator director of the courts, here to testify in my personal capacity and strong support. I've had the opportunity and the honor of working closely with chief justice Recktenwald and his chambers on cases and other matters for a year, and then approximately ten more years working closely with him in support of his administrative role leading the judiciary. We've also had the honor of working closely with acting chief justice McKenna for nearly seven months.

Thanks to chief justice Recktenwald and chief justice McKenna, I've had the good fortune to engage and collaborate with many judicial and administrative leaders in other jurisdictions and here to share thoughts based on some familiarity with the challenges and opportunities of the position of chief justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court.

First, the position requires a superhuman work ethic, because the role requires incredible empathy and an openness to listen with genuine interest and understanding. It requires a defamiliarity with the practice of law, nuances in the practice in different areas, and how things sometimes are done differently across the state because of different resources.

It requires an appreciation of the hard work by civil servants, administrators, and judges across the judiciary and across the justice system who are committed to service and have much experience facing and resolving challenges through their own hard work and innovation. It requires a particular mindset to be the leader of the third branch of government and the leader of the justice system. The role requires an unending drive and urgency to safeguard and improve the justice system in every possible way.

And and while acutely sensitive to how the justice system reaches individuals and families and communities, often at their most critical juncture in their lives, and all interests and stakeholders. The role requires courage and constant reflection on our North Star, which is the importance of the rule of law, to the democratic structure and social fabric of our society, and for each case, the applicable law.

As I've had the privilege of seeing with chief justice Recktenwald and chief justice McKenna, I'm confident that, Justice Devens possesses these qualities in abundance, and I'm confident he'll be an extraordinary chief justice. Thank you for the opportunity, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify in GM 801? Yep. Come on up. Good morning.

Good morning, chair Rhodes and, vice chair Gabbard and members of the committee. My name is Chris West. I am the president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. I apologize for not having my name on that list there. But, I I felt compelled to come this morning to to, express some of the concerns and the worries of of my members, 16,000 across the state of Hawaii, that are worried about their future.

Right? I wear two hats today. I wear a hat as a president and a representative of many working class people across the state of Hawaii. And as you folks are very aware of, many of our local families are hurting right now. They're hurting.

They're in pain. And the suffering comes from watching their families and their children move away from home, watching their ability to have their children raised in the place that they grew up in evaporate right in front of them. Now we have a unique opportunity to have someone, who's born and raised here to sit in the highest position and to have a care and a love for this state and this this home that we grew up in that not everyone may be able to relate to.

And so I sit here strongly in in support for for justice Debit because I think that we're at a turning point now where many local families are looking for that help. They're looking for that support.

They're looking for those that understand our pain and our suffering and are hoping that the lawmakers can feel that and can understand that, and we need that help. And we need someone that can feel it, that can understand it, and can relate to the to the to the struggles that we have as as local working families here. So I'm open for any questions as well. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify on GM eight zero one? GM eight zero one. Okay.

Seeing none, members, any questions for the testifiers to this point? Okay. Seeing none, Mark K Murakami, president of Hawaii State Bar Association. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gavin, and members of the committee. Mark K. Murakami on behalf of the Hawaii State Bar Association. As set forth in our written testimony, we've gone through our normal rigorous process. We have found justice Devens qualified for the position of chief justice.

K. Great. Members questions? Okay. Thank you.

Next, justice Devens, if you'd like to make an opening statement. I didn't see where you sat down. I saw you were here. Okay. There you go.

Good morning. Morning.

Morning, mister chair, vice chair, honorable members of this committee. I wanna start by giving a little bit about my background for those who may not be as familiar with where I've been and how I got to this spot today. I'm born and raised here in Honolulu. Other than going away to the Mainland, I've spent my entire life here. This is where I got married.

This is where I raised my kids. I had the opportunity to go away for school and I took that opportunity. I had to get student loans to pay my way through school. I went to the Mainland. I was accepted at the UC Berkeley, University in the Bay Area.

I had to work extremely hard there because although it was a struggle for me, I didn't wanna come home in shame that I was not able to graduate and make it through at a Mainland school of that caliber. It was very academically challenging for me. I had to work extremely hard to get through it. But through perseverance, I was able to obtain a degree in economics. I graduated magnate from law and received five beta cap honors.

I came home and I spent six years in the police department. It was a place that I enjoyed very much. It taught me lessons that carried me through in my practice and understanding the struggles that are out there. The revolving door that we always talk about. I was part of it because I was involved in arrests and I saw how there was a lack of services.

Some people bring things onto their own selves, but I could see the struggles that they were going through, and it taught me very, strong lessons that I've always carried through with me. Aye, of course, graduated from UC Berkeley Law School and I went into private practice and that's where I spent thirty plus years as a trial lawyer. I always wanted to be the best trial lawyer I could.

As I progressed during my career, I had been asked by other circuit court judges to consider applying for a judgeship. At that time, it didn't really interest me because I enjoyed the trial work.

I enjoyed the, clients that I got to represent, and it was a plaintiff's practice. I also, of course, with labor law, I got to represent, various public, unions as well as a private sector, union. My law firm and my partner, Keania Lopo, here from earlier, we took great pride in representing the working families of Hawaii. In the practice, I made sure to involve myself in the legal community. I was on the HSA bar board for a number of years.

I also participated on the Judicial Administration Committee where I served for many years and co chaired that committee with Justice Acobach.

And after I got appointed to the bench, I actually asked to stay on that committee, even though it's an HSP committee to continue co chairing it because I thought it kept me, close to the bar and kept my ear to the ground to understand, what problems the bar was having and to try and pick up on those, issues and get them addressed, with the judiciary as soon as we could. So that is a, committee I enjoyed and I continue to, serve on that committee.

My transition to the court, for me, I hit the ground running. I didn't find any issues with the transition.

I thought it was pretty smooth. Learning the mechanics of the court, both substantively and operational, came easy to me. The workload is very comfortable. I've been told that in the last two years, the court has been, some of the busiest times that it's had over the last, several years. I'm very comfortable with that pace, compared to my private practice load.

I would say the private practice was much heavier, but something that I'm very, comfortable with. I've already issued, multiple, opinions already, including unanimous majority and a few dissents, as well. It's a very collegial court. They've been very welcoming to me, and I've appreciated and I take pride in, serving there. You know, during my meetings with, you committee members, it was at least reassuring to me that no one really had a question about my ability to discharge the duties there.

As far as my capabilities, my legal qualifications and that was reassuring because you don't really get a lot of feedback as far as how well you may or may not be doing or how you're perceived. One of the things that I know is a concern and it's always been my primary concern is the backlog.

But I can tell you that when I first came on board, I went over to the ICA and they had explained to me when, acting chief judge Leonard was, presiding on the changes she had made. And you can see from the IC backlog that it made great strides in cutting down that backlog. As I understand it, they're at or close to 2,024.

And although that sound still a ways off, relatively speaking, those are great strides. And I know that Chief Judge Nakasone is continuing on that path and making further adjustments as we continue to knock that backlog down. So, of course, for any new incoming chief justice, the backlog, is and I'm sure will remain a primary concern to make sure that we get that, chopped down to a reasonable time period.

If I'm given that opportunity, that is something that, I will do everything I can to make sure that we bring it within a reasonable time period so that justice is served in a timely manner. For me, the biggest challenge for the, chief justice's position is of course the administrative side to the job.

You're the, administrative head of the judiciary in that position. I had to do some self reflecting on my own before I committed to this process to see what experience I had, what I could use in fulfilling these duties. And not just discharging the duties, but trying to discharge it at the highest level possible. And I have had experience, twenty five plus years of experience dealing with various management issues, and that came through my labor experience, my labor practice.

I've been exposed to a variety of, complicated management issues.

I've dealt with budgets, finance, CIP capital improvement projects, disciplinary matters, suspensions, the terminations, disciplinary transfers, disciplinary motions, overtime issues, comp time issues, seven day provision, unfair labor charges, negotiation of contracts, interest contract arbitrations, you name it. I pretty much had experience with it. And that I think will be a valuable resource for me in tackling issues that come up. And with labor management, the real key there is not just confronting the issue, but resolving the issue.

And that is something that I took great pride in in working with management to resolve, many of the issues.

And the pride I took is that most of the issues we were always able to meet and figure out a solution, that worked for both sides. Sometimes of course we got to arbitrate matters, but I tried to keep that far and few between because I think that's how you move things along and, maintain the relationships that you need to make sure that management issues are addressed properly and resolved fairly.

And the pride I took is that most of the issues we were always able to meet and figure out a solution, that worked for both sides. Sometimes of course we got to arbitrate matters, but I tried to keep that far and few between because I think that's how you move things along and, maintain the relationships that you need to make sure that management issues are addressed properly and resolved fairly.

Most of my experience with management issues, are qualified that it has been with, police departments because my longest and oldest client is, Shopeo. But if you look at the comparison, the judiciary, the biennial budget, I think is 214,000,000 or so this year, 212,000,000 next year, and we have about 1,700 positions.

If you look at HPD, they have 2,500 positions, 29 divisions, and their budget is 300 plus million, north. And so it's actually a bigger organization. But what I see, because we've already seen some of the issues that come up through the judiciary, is that any large size organization that has employees, the problems are very common. They're common throughout. So I am confident that the issues are something that I can manage, but more importantly can resolve and and resolve quickly.

We have a great structure in place. Chief Justice Recktenwald left the judiciary in a very, very strong position, both structurally and operationally. And chief justice, McKenna has continued to nurture that, structure. We had a good succession plan where we had Brandon Kimura coming in as the administrative director who succeeded Rodney Miley and his deputy, Dylan Rose Heather. I worked with them before and we have youth on our side with those two individuals.

And the hope is that they will stay and continue on, in that position for a long time. They are very capable. They work hard. We had a power outage. Things come up here and there yesterday.

They work twenty four seven, and I have much admiration for them, but it's my hope, if I'm fortunate to be passed through this audible body, that they will continue to be there. I know that we have inefficiencies in the system. There always are. That is something that I'd like to, tackle right away and identify them right away, performance gaps. I think there's a lot of room for modernization.

As chief justice Reichenwald alluded to, I co chaired the AI committee. We've already started looking at AI tools to see how they can, help us, with our inefficiencies. We have, translators and interpreter shortages. We have court reporter shortages. And when you talk about those things, we're talking about access to justice.

You don't have our interpreter. You don't have, court transcripts coming out. The cases don't move. And to me, those

problems. We also have shortage of attorneys. We have less and less attorneys coming through the bar, and they say that 40% of the current bar is over the age of 60. That's a problem because we have less attorneys available to help those that need attorneys assigned to them. We just put together a group, committee that's gonna study why it is that we're trending down on attorneys.

are real

In my lifetime, I never thought that we'd have a shortage of attorneys, but that seems to be the case. And it's something that has to be addressed right away to ensure that we continue to have access to justice. And that's something that concerns me, and I wanna make sure it's addressed as quickly as possible. Some have asked, you know, how would you describe your management style? I said, well, how would you see me?

How do you view me from what you know of me? And they said, well, one, you're very decisive. You don't play around with things, but I'm a very active listener. I wanna find out and get as much information as I can, but I also don't like to extend things out too far. Otherwise, you don't you're not decisive.

And I like to move things along quickly. That is my work ethic is to move as quickly as possible. With any assignment, any job that I've given from when I was recruit school, going to college, going to law school, in my practice, I always gave a 100% of myself and that is something that I would pledge that I would do, and do whatever it takes to get the job done. But to do it at a high level is what I always, strive for.

I appreciate the time here and, available for any questions.

Thank you. Members questions? I'll start with Senator Awa.

So I'll lighten it real quick and and say that I appreciate everybody who gets up here and says that a local boy born and raised four years ago, wasn't like that. Anyway, I thought that was light. Getting to this though, but you gotta you gotta you gotta do our mindset. You can do the work, a year to the ground, a pulse for the people, broad range of support.

You you talked about the hardest part of the job, but the hardest part might be this process that you're going through now, this time around, especially with some of what the opposition said and what the media is pointed to.

What is your response? I haven't heard it yet. What is your response to the criticism of your political past?

You know, I'll say this, you know, when I was answering the questions of the JAC application. My perception and granted there's some subjectiveness in some of the questions. Through your subjectiveness. As a private attorney, my perception and how I viewed those questions was my practice involved representing public organiz public labor unions, public organizations, and the related labor activities. I did not view that as a negative in and of itself or a negative reflection on me.

And that was my perception. However, in talking with several members of this committee and hearing the sentiments that were conveyed to me, and how political committees may have opposed the candidate or expended resources. I certainly understand and appreciate that perception and the expectation to disclose. It wasn't my intention at all, and I'm very sorry and regret that it came across that way.

Mahalo for that. I appreciate that. One more to tag on to that. There there was the the one testifier who brought up a a particular union, and and the fear there would be, hey. This this union is very influential currently in the administration, and now it'd be in the judiciary as well.

What what is your response to that?

Well, first of all, I have a very rigorous conflict screening procedure in my office. And I also consult with the judicial conduct condition anytime we have a question. And I've done that in the past, especially when I first came on because I had to get a feel as to what they sense was a potential conflict or what should be disclosed and so on. But I'll tell you one letter that I saw that was submitted, to you folks.

And that was from, I believe he's a professor Lawson up at the UH Law School.

And what struck me was that he said, five years ago, he could not support me. And it was because of the heavy law enforcement and union involvement that I had. But that he carefully watched me on the bench over the last two years. And he said that record and how I discharge my duties caused him to write and to support me. And he said that this is the kind of judge you want who doesn't come in with an ideological bend or an agenda.

But it was that law enforcement and union that obviously raised serious concerns for him. And so that that's something that I thought he could see that one, we have to be impartial. It's not a choice. It's a mandatory requirement, and I adhere to that. I will continue to adhere to that.

And if there's any conflicts on anything, I make the proper disclosure. If it's an actual conflict, I immediately refuse. And if you check my record, that's what I've always done in the cases that have come before me.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Other questions?

Thank you, sir.

I do.

Oh, okay. Go ahead. Senator San Buenaventura.

Okay. Thank you. And and thank you, Justice Evans, for meeting with us outside as well as here. As I had discussed earlier with you, it's not my concern of you being an attorney. I I know you are super smart.

You're intelligent. Your record speaks for itself. And in fact, when when we talked about it, being an attorney myself, some sometimes we have to represent the most odious clients. And it's not that kind of relationship that I'm concerned about. It is I want to know what your relationship is with PRP.

Can you at least generally describe that?

I will tell you other than being part of that committee, I had no relationship with them before nor did I have a relationship with them after. They were never a client, never represented them. My primary union clients were, of course, SHOPO, because I was with them for the longest, UPW, and the teachers. Those were my primary clients. I did some work for HFFA before when they called me.

I did some work for, HDA when they called upon me. I also collaborated with UPW when they called upon me. And when Tony Gill was still alive and representing them. Those are my primary clients. And toward the tail end of my legal career, ILW brought us on.

But I've never represented PRP. I've never represented the Carpenters.

So like I said, it's not your, affiliation as an attorney that concerns me because, you know, like I said, I was an attorney too.

I

I've been court appointed with the most, like I said, odious clients, and and we are required to. That's the basic tenets of doing our best job for our clients. It's the fact that you were listed as a director. Not as an attorney as a director on a three director panel, only three directors for Be Change Now. You said you haven't represented them.

But Be Change Now, I mean, why don't you give us generally, I I'm not gonna I don't wanna speak on your behalf. So what is your relationship with Bee Change Now then? Because you are listed as a director. So let's talk about that.

Yes. I think I I thought you had asked me earlier about PRP, and I said other than the that political committee, that was my only relationship or involvement with them.

Is the the political committee's be changed now?

Yes.

Okay. So Be Change Now, you were listed as a director, three directors from 2018 to 2022. Why did you join as a director

for Be Change Now? I was asked to come on and with many of these, these other committees or boards that I joined, they like to have an attorney on the board and I serve in sort of a, it's it's a useful resource for the board. It was same way that I served with, crime stoppers, Honolulu, which was another board that I was on. And time to time, they have legal questions.

It's easy to just ask someone on the board who's an attorney, and I'm always happy to serve in that capacity.

That was basically it was a, you know, fairly limited role, but it was more of that role than anything else. It's the same thing I did with Crime Stoppers. It's convenient for a committee on board to have an attorney, and it was just something that I was happy to do. But other than, that type of role, that was pretty much it. I didn't have any further relations with PRP or the carpenters or Did

you form BeeChange Now as an attorney?

No. I did not.

So you were not listed as of counsel to BeeChange Now. You were a director.

Yes.

And you were a director. And according to Beat Change Now, basically, the reason for the purpose of Beat Change Now is political. Right? It is to promote politicians who they believe are for the betterment of Hawaii. I mean, basically, I think that's what it says.

So you know that it was a political action committee that was being formed, that you joined?

Yes.

And knowing I mean, smart person, being involved with labor. You also know that PRP prior to being create prior to be be changed now had a huge with Cayetano and NASA and had a defamation claim by Cayetano against him. So you know that this negative publicity type of campaign, There has been a history of it with PRP and their political action committees. So prior to you joining p being part of Be Change now. You do know that?

Yes. Okay.

Twenty twenty two election, Be Change Now was involved in a massive, at least $2,000,000 campaign against Sylvia Luke. Huge negative publicity. Were you involved in the decision making regarding that huge negative publicity?

You know, I'll I'll tell you it'd be inappropriate me for me to disclose the internal business, but I will tell you again that my role was pretty much limited to what I described earlier.

Okay.

Which means that that that doesn't really answer the question. The question was, were you involved in the decision making for the $2,000,000 campaign that occurred in 2022 against Sylvia Luke?

That wasn't really my role, Senator. And, you know, when you talk about unions and political activities, I think almost all the union representatives you see here today are involved some degree in some form of, political activity. When I had, SHOPO, we had a political committee, in house, And they often asked me to, participate on that committee, especially if a candidate was coming forward that was an attorney, because they wanted that insight to it. But, it's something that is just part of the business of the unions.

What they see is advancing their interest for their union members, and it's really just that.

And I understand that.

And

but the reality is, you know, PRP has that has that history, right, against Kai Haacama multimillion dollar campaign. They lost a defamation suit, And now they created this other campaign I mean, this other PAC called Be Change Now involved in another negative campaign. And you resigned in 2022. Why?

I really wasn't doing much then. And I also had a personal decision that I was making with my law firm.

Has that had anything to do with your application to for justice a few months later? No. So it's just coincidental that when you when you applied, you are not a member of Be Change Now, and so you did not feel like you needed to disclose your affiliation would be changed now.

But I wouldn't say coincidental. It just turned out that

way. And no. I mean, we we have confirmed other labor lawyers before, but it it's that particular campaign compared to, like, HGA, HSTA, you know, they're more positive. The negative multimillion dollar campaign has the power, not only to have the negative public not only to negatively affect that particular campaign, but also has the effect. And I believe because the change now was created solely for this, to intimidate potential politicians to not engage, to not oppose PRP.

And that is the big problem I have with a multimillion dollar negative campaign and not these other supportive campaigns that the other unions have. So I just want it on the record whether or not you as a three as one of the three directors, only three, of Be Change Now, were you part of the decision making of this negative campaign, which had the dual purpose of negatively affecting that campaign, as well as intimidating politicians for ever opposing PRP or the Carpenters?

That wasn't my role, Senator.

Okay. Were you paid as a director, as one of the three directors for Be Change now?

No, and I and I you know, like, Crime Stoppers as well, you know, it's not paid. It's just what you volunteer to do.

Okay. Should we do rounds?

Yeah. Go ahead.

Well, first, let me follow-up on a couple of things that Senator San Buenaventura said. I it's a little unclear to me what the dates were that you actually did work for when you're a board of director for Be Change Now. The business registration division says it was as at least as early as 2019 and that you were still a director in April '23. Is that correct?

No. I had stepped off, and I know the paperwork, you know, whether it was updated or not. But I I don't I don't remember if it was '18 or '19. I wasn't I don't remember clearly on that.

K. Well, the the business so the I I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the latter date because you're actually you were still a board member until after we had confirmed you the first time. December '23, you were still on the board.

Well, I had already, in June, have told them that I was

Okay. So fair enough. So on in April '23, you were still on the board then?

Well, they listed me.

Oh, you said you okay. You you I didn't get your When did you resign? June '23?

I in June, I gave my notice and it was July '23? Yeah. No. '22.

Okay. So be changed now when a a regular cycle where they because they I think their their their registration comes up once a year, and I believe it's in April. And they still counted you as a board member then, and I I I just don't under I don't understand. So what so if you if you were resigned in June '22, then why did they rear you up in April '23 and then not take you off until December '23.

Yeah. I I I don't know if something, you know, I'd be expecting I know something slipped through the cracks or whatever, and I and I hope I don't have my dates mixed up as well, Senator. I'm I'm not sure.

On the let's see here. Where is it? On the the 2023 JSC application, there is a

I'm sorry. What year? The twenty twenty three Twenty twenty three.

The first the first time we Okay. Confirmed you. There's a question. List activities in civic or charitable organizations and the appropriate approximate dates of each activity. Would you have if you had been on the board of Be Change Now, at the time you filled out this application, would you have felt obligated to put down that you are on the board of of Be Change Now?

No. And I looked at that question. Was that question called for civics and child organizations, and I wouldn't consider a a political committee a committee, either one of those.

Okay. Is there anywhere on the JSC where you felt like you should have put down that you were a board member of Be Change Now if you if you had been at the time that you filled out the application?

If it was a current affiliation.

Okay. Where would you have put it in then?

I can't remember exactly what the I thought there was some question on that.

Oh, so that's that's that's the category that seemed like the most logical place to put it. But the this is why this is why the dates are important because if you didn't step down until the June 2023, then on your your initial application, there was you didn't indicate anywhere that you that you're a member of one of the most powerful political organizations in the in the state. I personally I find that less for full disclosure, my wife worked for PRP for a couple years.

So, you know, it's not that part of it is not the big deal to me. But the fact that you would leave off something that important would be if the dates don't match up.

And I'm so if if you could provide us if you could figure out when you actually quit, if you've got a letter or something that would Yeah.

No. I I

would be important to me.

Yeah. I I think it was it had to have been 2022. And on that particular question, whether it was on or off, I wouldn't have founded and been responsive to civics or a charter organization.

Well, I mean, I'm I'm looking at the I'm looking at everything I mean, if if nothing else, the questions that that we asked you in 2020, that my committee asked you or my staff asked you in 2023, there's one that's very broad. It just says, is there anything basically, is there anything important that you think should be included? And it wasn't there there's there's no answer there.

Well, it was information about it says information about yourself, unfavorable unfavorable information about myself. Right? Just it you know, for me in representing I

think that's what it said. Keeping in mind that the preferred policies and appointees on the side of full disclosure, please provide any information about yourself that might be viewed unfavorably by the Senate regardless of whether a formal charge or complaint was filed against you. So you're you're you're on the board of, one of the PRP affiliates, which okay. That's fine.

But it it's hard to understand how you didn't know that that was could be viewed negatively by the Senate when they were just getting bad press, like, day after day, week after week at that point.

Because I I it's just as a practicing attorney, it's just work that we do. And I didn't consider that work to be a negative or unfavorable reflection on me. You know, I've had other unions that supported other candidates from other parties, in that same election. But is that a reflect

But you mentioned those, so that's that's the difference.

But I I I didn't as far as who they chose or whatever activities I may be involved in

with them. You mentioned SH0PO. You mentioned all the other or all the other unions that you Yeah. Were affiliate not affiliated with, but worked with or represented or so I I if that if that's your answer, that's fine. I I would like to see if something that says when you actually when you tried to step down from the Be Change Network.

It was June that I informed them that I was intending to step down for July. You just called? Might have been both. I don't remember.

Okay. If you could look for that, I'd appreciate it. I'm gonna hog the hole. Anybody else have questions? Senator Chang, go ahead.

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to first follow-up on an earlier question about your experience representing law enforcement. We heard yesterday and today we recommended the confirmation of two judges nominated to the circuit courts who had served both as public defenders and also as prosecutors. Your experience is primarily with law enforcement. And, of course, as a justice, you're required to be objective and not reflexively take a side in criminal cases.

Can you give any examples to this committee of your ability to be objective and not be biased in favor of law enforcement?

I don't know about a specific example, but there was a recent case where opinion required that interrogations be recorded. Video both video and audio. And it was a divided court, but I was on the side that made that requirement mandatory, and I heard some comments that they thought I was anti police. And and make the call the way I see it. And when I first came on the bench, of course, the preconception is that law enforcement, police officer, and all of that.

But what I also said was if there's anyone who should be able to recognize that, there was a violation of someone's rights, I hope it's me. Because of my experience, because I was putting criminal procedure into practice as a police officer, that I hope I would have a greater insight into whether or not there is a violation or not, and to make sure that it's corrected. So that's the only real example I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm sure there's other cases that we've had, over the course, that I've been there. I apologize that I just can't think of any others, but that was a more recent case that we had.

Thank you. Is the Office of the Public Defender properly resourced, in your opinion?

Well, I just heard that there may be some considerations on cutting their budget, and it's raised some it's raised some alarm bells, lack of a better way of putting it for them. And I don't wanna speak out of turn, but to if you lose attorneys there, that would be devastating in my personal view.

Because I think already it's a struggle for them to staff what they need to with the amount of work they have, the amount of cases that need diligent attorneys that aren't spread too thin. So it's a personal concern for me.

Speaking of those lack of resources, should more do you believe that more criminal cases should be tried as opposed to plea bargained?

Well, I think each case is, you know, case by case. I mean, there's reasons for fleeing and there's reasons for trying a case. I don't have opinion one way or the other, but I would hope whatever decision is made is because you had a attorney available to guide you. And it's not because of a lack of not having an attorney or lack of resources to defend yourself that that would cause you to make certain decisions. Those are the things that, I'd be concerned about.

Well, in addition to the lack of resources to pay defenders, there may also be a lack of resources to, for example, retain an expert to weigh in on sentencing or

No question.

Fitness to stand trial.

No question.

Are are those resources do you believe those are sufficient?

I don't know how they're budgeted right now and, you know, what their demands are. So I'm I'm not sure I can answer that here. But I'm sure that's an ongoing concern for them as expert fees go up. And the price to try case is just very expensive, and it's always an access to justice issue.

Are there too many people with mental illness in our correctional system? And what can be done about it?

I don't know what the stats are offhand, you know, as far as, what the population percentage is.

But I can tell you, having been a police officer, in Honolulu, that I always thought there was a lack of services, a lack of opportunities provided to those that really needed help that locking them up wasn't the answer, but they get right back on and, you know, it's more costly to the community, I thought, to run it that way rather than putting the appropriate amount aside to see if we can really give them the proper treatment and turn them around, to avoid that, in and out, cycle.

But, I know it always comes down to resources and funding, and that's always a tough call for you folks.

Switch gears a little bit. In the 2018 case City and County of Honolulu versus State of Hawaii, the Supreme Court considered a constitutional amendment which was on the ballot to establish a surcharge on investment real property to be used to support public education. It held that the term surcharge on investment real property was unconstitutionally vague because voters might be misled that it would not affect their taxes.

In the event the ballots had already been printed and the votes were counted contrary to the Supreme Court's order, and 70% of the voters voted no, implying that they did understand the question and voted for real property taxes not to go up. Do you believe that question was too vague?

And what level of deference is owed to the elective legislative branch of government and to the intelligence of the voters?

You know, for because of the position I'm in now, I obviously can't give a comment or opinion on that. But what what I can say is that, as a court, due deference has to be given to the legislature with certain presumptions and assumptions as the legality of the statutes that are passed. Obviously, it wasn't on the court at that time, but that issue may come up again. And therefore, I would have to reserve a direct comment on it on that at this time.

And I'm sorry that I couldn't say more.

Thank you. I have further questions, chair, but I'm I'll let others have a chance.

Alright. We've been going for a while. Let's take a quick let's see. That clock says 10:44. Why don't we come back at 10:50 and we'll continue from there.

So brief recess.

So brief recess.

Okay. Coming back in on the our 9:40 agenda for nomination for Chief Justice. I think I'll turn to Senator Gabbard next. I believe you had some questions. Okay. Go ahead.

Justice Devens, you mentioned in your opening statement that court delays and the backlog remain a concern. So what specific reforms would you implement in your first year to reduce those backlogs?

Well, already, you know, you folks recently consented to Judge Gluck. So, obviously, that's gonna help at the IEC level. We see the increased volume from the cert applications, which indicates that the ICA is pushing out a lot of decisions. So the more volume we see, the more they are producing decisions there that are then being appealed to us.

I, one of the first things I'd wanna do is to meet with the Chief Justice Nakasone to see what other adjustments possibly can be made, what help she may need to see how we can chop the backlog down even further. But just to find out what the lay of the land is first and what she needs, what adjustments can be further can be made to ensure that we can bring it to within a manageable, reasonable time span.

And also, what steps would you take to improve access to justice, you know, especially for underserved communities in our state?

You know, there was always our Chief Justice Recktenwald was the biggest proponent I know of access to justice. And I think it's incumbent on whoever is gonna be taking this next position to continue that process of making it even wider. I went to a recent, maybe not so recent, a conference about a year ago at NYU Law School.

And one program they're advocating is to try and get the big firms to commit a certain amount of hours from their associates to dedicate to access to justice, but credit those hours against the total hours they're supposed to make for the firm.

In other words, they would donate or give those hours in handling access to justice cases because then you can try and dedicate an attorney to actually see a case from start to finish rather than just giving spot advice and help here and there.

That is one program I'd like to see if that would get any traction here. I'd like to also talk with the other jurisdictions to see what new innovations they have with access to justice, but that is obviously a top priority and it should be for the Judiciary.

Thank you, Justice. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Other questions, Members? Okay. Senator Ihara is not on the committee, but it's been my practice in the past to allow other Members to ask questions, as Senator San Buenaventura can attest to. So go ahead, Senator Ihara.

And it's been a number of years since I've been on the Judiciary Committee. We've had some interesting confirmations and fulfilling our constitutional role of advise and consent. As I appreciate nominee speaking with me for quite a while.

And I appreciate your candor, your honesty, and I would I would say, correcting the public perception. And as you know, my interest is, throughout my career, public trust in government. And Judiciary, I think, can be the most or should be the most trusted branch of government, free from political influence.

And so I wanted to ask, and so there's a concern why I wanna, let me start off with this. Do you what is your perception of the public's view of you, your role in the last confirmation by the, you know... First of all, I accept your apology.

I know it's a mistake, and you should have, as I agree with you, you should have disclosed it. It was, I think, pretty significant, and I accept your apology. So I accept you as a justice, and by all accounts, you've been an excellent justice in the Supreme Court.

So I wanna acknowledge that as from what I know. So I wanted to ask you, what is your, how do you, what, how do you see the public's view of you in the last round with the error? And I'm thinking that this process here is about whether you can, you have the discernment to be a chief justice beyond a justice.

And whether you can distinguish between a justice's discretion and discernment to a chief justice's discernment and discretion and responsibility and accountability. And public, in a way, the holder public trust for the the branch.

And so I wanted to first ask you what you, what your take is as a from back then and also the current the current state of public trust in your role and Judiciary and PRP, all that gets mixed in and it's all public perception. It could be right, it could be wrong, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to update the public perception.

Well, you know, public trust is everything, Senator. And so is my integrity. That's everything to me and the only thing I have. And so public trust is of paramount importance to me. If there is any hesitation on that, I would like to do everything I possibly could to reassure that I take my job very seriously.

I take my oath very seriously. The duties that are imposed on me now, I take very seriously. When it comes to any sense of a conflict or any of that sort, that I've always immediately recused on anything like that. If it was even a close call, I made a disqualification. And I think on some of the close calls, I decided myself to recuse even when the Judicial Commission said it would be okay.

It was just that I was very mindful of that perception that I took those steps myself. So it is very important to me and I, of course, wanna do everything I can to ensure that I have the trust of this body and the trust of my colleagues and the trust of the Judiciary and all those that work in that branch.

Thank you. So how did you... Do you understand that Be Change Now, the board you're on, the nonprofit board, a nonprofit board is not necessary to have a PAC, super PAC. Not a political action committee does not have to have a nonprofit.

This is a nonprofit. It was a registered nonprofit, subject to the laws, Hawaii Nonprofit Act, which is more stringent than a regular PAC. You have to take minutes and all of that. So I wanted to understand what you, how you viewed Be Change Now. Did you understand that they were a political influence organization?

Oh, it was clearly a political, action committee. I don't think there was any doubt about that. But I had conveyed is that the way I viewed my role, it was limited in the sense that there was a certain usefulness in what as a lawyer on that committee and other committees that I've served on. And that's basically how I saw the position. And I don't mean to play down all the things that you have said. I acknowledge that, the other perceptions. And yes.

So I'm trying to understand to what extent you appreciated the... Well, Be Change Now is a political influence organization. It's designed to influence, which is fair. No problem with that. And I'm trying to, because I hear on the one hand, you're kinda just the pro bono attorney in a way, but you're also on the nonprofit board.

Let me ask you. I'll ask you some questions I asked you when I, when we were together. Did you see... So one is you acknowledge having voted for the expenditure of the, I don't track. Was it $2 million or whatever it was? I don't you know. But during your the period when you're a fiduciary on that organization, did, do you acknowledge having voted as an organization would be required to vote to expend the funds for these ads?

You know, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to be, you know, discussing internal business, but I don't... Yeah. I don't remember those kinds of details. I just don't. And I'll just say, he had responsibilities divided up, and maybe that's the best way I can explain it.

Well, as an attorney, I don't presume all the laws are followed, so I'm not gonna quibble with that. And I'm, neither do I even suspect. So I just wanna just stipulate that. So there would be the minutes of the organization.

Which are not public there, but they're available to the members. And the minutes would show that the board, at least by two out of three of the members, voted to approve the expenditure of the ads. So do you acknowledge that would be the case?

If that happened. I assume. I've not seen the minutes myself, so I don't have personal knowledge.

Well, we can, so is that a proper assumption or proper presumption that that's what probably happened?

I don't know because I haven't seen the minutes.

No. But as an attorney. Senior attorney. I'm not an attorney. That as attorney, and actually the attorney for the the board. Right? For the three, that's your role. You would ensure, right? So you're the role, so you're advising the three as you came on for that role. That was why you're there. And you didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the politics of things.

As I understand it. And so you focus on that. And so and so that's why I'm asking the question about, you know, the board's attorney that they would have taken they would have taken the votes as required by the Nonprofit Act of Hawaii. You're familiar with that. Right? Okay. And so you have to have minutes. You have to have agenda. At least you can do an email, I think.

You know, email, we're gonna meet this time officially for the record. You know, besides your informal talks, you know, just for the business part, you have to have a business meeting. Besides, you know, where you have to make it official. Sometimes, you know, pro forma. But I would presume that you would advise them to just do the pro forma business. Right?

You know, one thing is that, you know, it wasn't the per se attorney on the, for the committee. But they would, time to time, have questions that they just ask, and without, you know, divulging their internal business. I will tell you, similar to other organizations, they have questions, for example, like liability insurance.

Is it the proper insurance? What are these liability provisions mean? Cannibalizing policies. You know, layman may not understand exactly what that is. Do we have proper D&O insurance? Are the policy limits proper? It was more, that's more what I'm used to answering in terms of questions that lay members may have.

Okay. That clears, that helps clarify things a little bit. I'm gonna ask you a pointed question. Did you see the ads against whomever? Was it Tokuda, Luke, and maybe others? I don't know. Did you see those ads before they're aired?

First time I saw them was on TV.

If you had to vote on it, would you have voted to... Well, I mean, so how did you... So sorry. I'm presuming it was sort of, you know, it had a little, had a nasty tone to it. But so how do you characterize those ads? The worst of the ads.

I don't remember the specifics to any one of those ads. But just in general, when you say the candidate, I saw ads related to them. I'm sure I did.

So none of them made, for me, it was like a little cringe worthy. You don't see it very often.

Well, I mean, I have my personal opinions about just politics in general on how things... I'll leave it at that. And I'll just say I'm, it's one reason I'm not a politician.

So can you understand the some public concern that the branch that should be the most furthest away from political influence might perceive that it might get a gotten a little closer than they would want, by perception, by the by the error that is, you know, forgiven. Do you see how that... I'm trying to see how if we can sort of heal that or cure that or repair that, you know, and a chief justice can do that.

No. And I do. And as I said earlier, I regret that it even came across that way. And you're absolutely right in terms of perception. That's very important to me. That's something I learned when I was a police officer. Perception. How the public perceives us.

That's something I've, I understand your concern and the point you're raising. And I agree with you in terms of doing whatever I can to ensure that I have public trust. And I hope that my, going forward, if I'm given the opportunity, that my performance and my record will reflect that trust and doing the job.

And I'm not sure if you're here earlier, Senator, but I one of the letters that caught my attention was from Professor Lawson, who said five years ago, he had serious would express a serious concern, concerns about me because of my background.

And he said law enforcement and unions. But that my discharge of my duties, my performance as a justice on the high court seemed to earn his trust to the point that he was compelled to write a letter of support. And I hope I can continue doing that with my actions going forward if given the opportunity.

Chair, I have just two more questions. I appreciate your indulgence. You had said that you had resigned from Be Change Now in July, effectively July 2022. You had applied for the Intermediate Court of Appeals, ICA, that month. Is that correct?

Yes. I withdrew that application.

When did you withdraw it? When when did you file it? When did you withdraw it? Then did you... See, let me try to. So did you, where was the resignation? So you have two dates, your application to withdraw, and then there's the third date, which is when you resign. So where where do the two dates fit in? Where does this resignation fit?

In June, I gave them notice of my intention to step down as of July. And that's 2022.

Right. And then when when did you withdraw?

I don't remember.

Because later on, because later on, a few months later, you applied for the Supreme Court.

I applied for the Supreme Court. I think it was a latter part of 2023.

November 2022.

Oh. I'm sorry. 2022. I'm sorry I mixed up my dates.

No. My memory is just as bad. And so that's why, that's why. Well, that's why records helps. Recollection and hearing is not as good. It's helpful to have documents.

I think you're right. November 2022.

Yeah. Alright. So and the... Just public trust. You know, we're talking about public trust, and some pundits believe that the appointing authority was elected by the organization you were on the board. And then three weeks after the election, then you applied for the Supreme Court having put it in earlier. So I'm not a casting any aspersions. I'm saying that that's...

I can tell you how that happened.

Oh, yeah. Well, I'm just saying that there's a public perception. Incorrect, perhaps, and but it's there. And so if we can kind of nuance it enough to that we can ideally, it would be puff to go away. I don't think it's gonna go away like that. But if you can help, in a way, help the community heal, because I think it was hurtful for the community to have gone through this committee.

I feel for the committee having gone through the first time and having not have the most important piece of information of that year. This is 2022, and it's significant. And, you know, and I like the outcome, but it's you know, how the process sometimes makes it a little bit more strenuous and more nerve wracking than it needs to be.

Yeah. As far as when I applied for the the high court, that actually came about because a former justice came to talk to me and asked me to consider applying for that position. That was not on my radar. And, you can believe it or not, I did not, I was not even aware that positions were coming up because I just had not been paying attention to that. And so that's how that came about that I ended up applying.

And if not for that person, I probably would not have applied. And it's a justice that I highly respect, I look up to, and has been a, I consider a mentor to me in both his judicial philosophy and his writings. And I wanna maintain his confidence, but I will tell you that's how that came about. It was not anyone else that approached me about that.

You know, that you resigned from Be Change Now before you applied for the ICA does show discernment. Right? It does show that you are aware to keep away potential perception of political influence on the Judiciary.

Because if you had not, then, you know, you would you would be both a member of a political influence, the most important political influence organization of that year, and at the same time. So it showed discernment that you resigned.

And so I appreciate that. And I would have would have wanted, and it was a mistake, to have that discernment carry over to the, the application to the JSC. And so and but there was no explicit question. So my question is, would you support a question or clarification on the ICA? No.

On the JSC application to explicitly ask about political influence, the relationship of the of the nominee, a judicial nominee's relationship to any political influence activity. And the reason for that would be to have in the future, you know, at least for public perception wise, we don't have anyone that it goes in that has ties that could have the public believe, wrongly, perhaps.

But public might think, especially conspiracy theory nowadays, that it, you know, it's, you know, it's a done deal kind of thing. It's all the heavy's gonna come in, and they're gonna do the thing, and they don't care about anything else. You know?

And that's a dangerous perception, I would think you agree. So I'm, so the question is, would you support or do you think it's important to have an explicit question on the Judicial Selection Commission application for a nominee to disclose any kind of links to any political activity?

You know, I don't wanna comment on the legalities and asking some about their politics or religion, you know, if that's. But I would tell you that I would have no problem answering that question. And if that was a question that directly asked me that, I have no problem answering it then as I would now.

And it's because I think everyone who knew my practice and my clientele and the unions and so on assumed that there was some politics always in the background, just because of the nature of labor groups and organizations.

And I know when I was with the labor committee, there were different candidates that would come down that sought the endorsement and support. And was I part of the vetting process? They asked me to, as their chief counsel, but it was just the nature of the work that I was involved in. And, yeah.

So if that question was asked to me, I'd have no hesitation answering that. And I know that I think Senator Rhoads had made a comment that there was no direct question on political activity. And I don't remember if it's a JSC application or your committee's own questions, but yeah, I have no hesitation answering that.

So if you were to meet the Senate's threshold elevating you from a justice to a chief justice, maybe I, maybe... Well, it'll be a a request, but maybe just consider it. Consider maybe, especially in your case, maybe a what I'm not sure what the powers of the chief justice, rules or something like that.

Where through a rule or some way to add a question or to take steps to insulate the Judiciary. Since you've been kind of tainted, you know, perhaps unfairly, that it might be an opportunity to actually give you a cause if you were to be. So to add, take some steps to re-gain the public trust. You know, Chief Justice Recktenwald went into the community, you know, because there was to address that, and I think it was very effective. You know?

So there it could be the same thing to do with having be a pure, clean civic activity, judicial trust. And because, at this point, it does seem like there is a perception that, more than necessary, more than I would want, and in part from the error, but I'm not sure how much we can cure it at this point.

Alright. And I and I appreciate that, Senator. I think one of the things that I would do is, obviously consult with my former boss, Chief Justice Recktenwald, to see what he did ask and what questions he did ask when he was considering district court positions because I'm not privy to that. It was not my, it was none of my business.

And how Justice McKenna did it. She had a chance to pick three recent judges and to see what her thought process was and to see what they think about it. If that's something that could be incorporated, I'd have no issue with that.

Alright. Let's... I'm happy to get back to you. Other questions, Members?

Thank you.

No. Okay. I have a few more. So going back to one of the questions that Senator San Buenaventura asked about the being on the board. So I mean, presumably, as a board member, you voted on whenever, I mean, I'm people miss meetings.

So I'm not, I wouldn't... If your, if your life is anything like mine, you don't always make it every meeting you're supposed to make it to. So you might have missed some votes, but you would have had to vote on everything that was put before the Be Change Now board. Correct?

Again, I won't you know, I don't think it's appropriate to disclose internal business, but if a vote if a vote was called and I was notified, sure.

Okay. So but you're so but... I mean, it's internal business. I mean, it is, how Be Change Now's board operated is of interest to me and to this committee, I think.

Yeah. If if there was any recommendations, you know, just in general, recommendations on voting a certain way because a director had vetted it and done whatever they were supposed to do as part of the responsibilities then they came up for a vote, sure. I would

You would have voted?

Yeah. Sure.

Okay. So but you don't so but that but that would mean that, presumably, you voted on all their expenditure, all their political campaigns in terms of, you know, who they supported and who they didn't support. I mean, I know it's an independent expenditure, so they're not supposed to support them directly. But there's...

Yeah. No. I mean, I have general ideas, but I wasn't really the finance, you know.

Fair enough. I just wanted to know whether you actually voted on them or not. Let's see. Another question here. I think maybe this has come up already, but if it's a repeat question, my apologize, my apologies. So when you came before this committee in 2023 when we confirmed you unanimously, you didn't disclose that you're on the BCN board to this committee at that time.

Can you just explain again why? I just I don't understand how that piece of information was not relevant to our... Whenever I find out something about a a nominee through the press, especially if it's negative, I feel like probably it should have been just said upfront at some point in the process. So what what was your rationale for not saying anything about it in the during the 2023 confirmation?

Well, because of my background as a, you know, the work that I was doing, it was just part of the everyday work that I do. And so there was nothing that stood out for me, my perception of my work and understanding of my perception is as a private attorney. Okay. And I don't think there was any question asked of me at the time, which maybe goes to Senator Ihara's suggestion about a question in the future. But...

No. But what question would you ask in that situation? Because we can... We don't know. We don't we don't know what we're looking for necessarily.

Right. But I think what, Senator Ihara, if I heard him correctly, is suggesting that you ask a direct question, you know, about any political activity, any political...

Well, so this is this is the 70th, 7-0, 70th time I've been Chair of the committee while we were confirming somebody. And what I've discovered over the years that we have tweaked our questions, the supplemental questions that we've done over the years, and you can't think of everything. And that's why...

And that's why we have these catch all ones at the end saying, is there anything else that you want to tell us or you should tell us that would be relevant to our deliberation? And that's the part of it that's the hardest for me to take as the Chair is that I think it wouldn't have made any difference to me as the Chair to know that you'd been on the on the board of Be Change Now.

And it wouldn't have made any difference to me to have said it.

And that's and that's, so why didn't you say it?

Because I didn't think it was a negative on me. It was just for the reasons I stated earlier.

So the other the other question, the other thing that was brought up is that, you know, you said you're not a politician. But I think that the job that you're, you know, about to take is in many respects a political job. And the fact that you don't, that you didn't see the political ramifications of not saying anything, I admit, does concern me because, you know, Justice Recktenwald was...

We might need to change the law to make it so that CJs have to register as lobbyists because he was up here all the time talking to me and then the money guys. And, you know, it's there's part of your job will be just like it is now on the on the legal side, but part of it's gonna be very political, and you need to have good judgment on what's what you need to reveal and what you need to not reveal.

I didn't mean it in that sense because I understand that part of the job, but I'm talking about in actual campaigning and doing that kind of stuff. I understand the legislative side to it and having to lobby and so on. I didn't mean it that way.

Okay. There are two other, hang on a second, let me just finish this. I did also have a question about the minutes. You said that you didn't see the minutes at Beat Change Now. Wouldn't you just automatically be given the minutes at the next meeting?

I didn't track that.

Okay. So do you think you might have gotten minutes or you didn't?

If they did, I just didn't track that. Okay.

Okay. So I have two other items that are admittedly hard for me to bring up, but I feel obligated. So there was, you had, I'm assuming Darren Cachola was somebody that you probably represented when you were with Schoppel. He was accused of, the police department, HPD tried to fire him and ended up getting suspended. Anyway, you recognize the name.

You know him. Is he a personal friend of yours?

No. I represented Schoppel, and he was a grievant in a case they assigned to us to litigate.

So he had a going away party, and this is from a Civil Beat article. As a final goodbye to policing, a flyer inviting family and friends to his retirement party on August 22, just last year, 2022.

It reads, the man, the myth, the legend, and contains a photo of a protester holding a sign with Cachola's face next to the faces of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer convicted of the killing of George Floyd in 2020, and George Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin in 2012. And then there's another story. I think it was one of the TV stations said that you attended that party.

How did you find out about that party?

Somebody had told me about it. Okay.

And why did you feel like you needed, I mean, if he wasn't a personal friend, why did you feel like you needed to go? Former client. That was it. Former client.

You go to, okay. I'll leave it at that then. There was one other thing. Let's see if I can find it. Oh, yeah.

The other question I had was, after you left Beat Change Now, did you have a falling out with the men and women over there at Beat Change Now? No? Because I noticed that, the first, in 2023, you put a Beat Change Now official on there as one of your references, but you didn't put him on in 2026.

And then for today's hearing, I don't know every individual, but there was no Beat Change Now testimony in your support. I don't know if they support you.

Every other union in the state does support you. So I was just curious whether there'd been some sort of falling out between you and them.

Not that I know of, but I really don't know the people there. If you look at my recent application, I actually changed out other names as well. I actually changed out the justices' names as references. So it wasn't just that one.

Okay. Alright, members? Yeah, I have Senator San Buenaventura. Sorry.

Sorry. Just a few follow-up questions. Okay. One of the basic tenets of being a judge is to avoid the appearance of impropriety, right?

And I know you were not a judge at the time, but the appearance of undue influence of Beat Change Now overshadows your application, especially since we are talking about being Chief Justice, which is the highest position in our judiciary system. You're in charge of judges. You're also in charge of attorneys, right?

Disciplinary, I mean, I looked at the list of the disciplinary cases you look at. As Chief Justice, you get to nominate district court judges. You also get to influence law, not only as a sitting member of the Supreme Court in being able to write decisions, but if you are on the winning side of a decision, you get to appoint who gets to write the opinion. And the opinion then gets followed further down.

And that opinion can last longer than legislators are around, or even administrative judges.

I mean, we know you're a smart man. We know that. I mean, look at all the people who are supporting you. It appears that, as an attorney, as a member of the bar, you have held yourself high. We don't have anybody opposing you. Like I said, sometimes as attorneys, we represent odious clients, but we don't even see any of those odious clients opposing you.

It's all this undue influence on a branch of the government where, you know, we already know the administrative branch. When he ran for lieutenant governor, he got a million dollars and got himself away from a pack of very competent people like Jill Tokuda running against him, but that Beat Change Now money, at least there was no negative publicity. So we're not counting that up, but it elevated him. His chief of staff is a former Beat Change Now lobbyist.

And with that kind of influence, and now a second branch of the government, with a potential of not just being an attorney. You are one of three directors, which has a different fiduciary duty than that of an attorney, being elevated to that point. We have seen the federal government, when the MAGA groups influence multiple branches of the government, that it's difficult for minority interests to be heard.

I mean, how do you assuage the public concern that this outsized influence, because you are in an appointed position, they don't get to elect you.

They rely on us to confirm you. How do you assuage the public, where this branch of the government could also be subject to outside influences?

Well, I'll answer it very simply with this, because it's judicial independence, and we have to protect that at all costs. And that is what I've done since I've sat on the bench, and that's what I will continue to do.

Okay.

Any other questions? Senator Chang.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of quick questions. Justice, do you believe that the facilities of the judiciary are secure?

You know, that's another ongoing issue that we have right now. And I think part of it is, and I don't want to speak out of turn, but it's something that we're addressing. I know there's a bill going through right now to see if we can get supplemental security. But for me personally, with my law enforcement background, we need armed guards at a courthouse. It's too easy to get in right now, at least to the Supreme Court, but I also understand there's a staffing shortage with the sheriffs. So I think the resources are being taxed. There's not enough bodies, so to speak, to go around. And so, yes, my answer is yes, that there are security issues.

Are they being looked at? Yes, they are. Are they trying to be addressed? Yes, they are. But that would certainly be a priority for me, because I think nationwide, and we see it here too, that the threats against judges have gone up, with several judges actually being seriously injured and killed.

In 2023, the state of Hawaii achieved gender parity on the bench for the first time in history. Do you think that gender parity should be maintained?

You know, I'm always sensitive to that. You know, I have three girls of my own. I have two sisters of my own as well. And, you know, of course, we do everything on merit and all things equal. I think that's something to keep in mind.

I think we may have actually more females on the bench right now than males, if I'm not mistaken. But I think being sensitive to that is very important.

I think it's fair to say that gender parity is one of the legacies, one of the top handful of legacies, for your predecessor, CJ Recktenwald. At the end of your term, if confirmed as Chief Justice, what would be the handful of items that you would like to see as your legacy?

You know, I think a priority for me is modernizing, where we can, judicial operations. Because of the staffing shortage, I think there's a lot of clerical, sorting, those kinds of tasks that bog down the staff and take them away from maybe the more important duties. I hope that we can modernize that so that our operations are much more efficient, much quicker in response in providing services to the public and the attorneys.

I wanted to do a top to bottom assessment to just see where the inefficiencies are, where the deficiencies are, get them identified right away. And those that can be resolved by quick solutions, get that done.

The more long term ones, try to prioritize them. You know, I went down to the First Circuit Court Building over the holidays to visit with a judge there, and you see the tiles open, hoses hanging down, rubbish cans in the hallways where the public walks. And it's still like that, the way it was when I was down there all the time. I understand we're getting the elevators fixed now, but I also understand it would have been $8,000,000 if we did it earlier.

Now it's like $15,000,000, if I got the information correct. So hopefully they'll address those things. So modernizing, making things as easy as I can for the attorneys, that is a major concern for me. Because if they're getting bogged down and there are obstacles to their practice, that has a domino effect on the representation they're providing. Making sure cases are moving as quickly as possible through the court system.

I know that we put the fast track in our rules a few years ago. I'd like to see how efficient it is, because when I attend these benchmark conferences, it doesn't seem that those rules are really being implemented and used as I think the hope was. But, you know, if you look at the statutory duties of the Chief Justice, it's the efficient operation of the courts, and it's the expeditious dispatch of all court business.

So to me, every decision should be wrapped around those two objectives, with any decision that a Chief Justice is making, and that I will keep in mind.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Other questions, members? Seeing none, decision making on GM 801 will be on Friday, April 24 in this room at 10 AM. This is Room 225. Thank you for being here.

Thanks for your responses, and thanks to all of you for participating. We're adjourned.