In plain words: A running record of what officials did, and whether it matched what they promised.
Government
View
pick a government to begin
12 Stones Global · Kilo Aupuni · accountability record
Accountability Record — Hawaiʻi & Maui County
What the public record shows: independent corruption rankings, federal convictions of officials,
the State’s own reform commission, and the lawful tools that already exist. Every line links to its source.
Every entry is public record with a source link. Individuals named below were charged/convicted in FEDERAL COURT (court outcomes, not allegations). This page reports documented facts, official findings, and recommended reforms. It does not allege wrongdoing by anyone not adjudicated; correlations elsewhere in Kilo Aupuni (donor->vote proximity, etc.) are framed as questions for reporting, never accusations.
What the studies say
In a study covering 1976-2024, Hawai'i was identified as among the most corrupt states, and Honolulu had one of the highest rates of public-corruption convictions per capita.
Methodology matters: 'most corrupt' depends on whether you measure convictions per capita, reporter perception, or legal/structural corruption. Read each source's metric.
Director, Maui County Dept. of Environmental Management
Accepted ~$2,000,000 in bribes (cash, bank deposits, casino chips, travel) from Milton Choy, 2012-2018, in exchange for steering more than $19,000,000 in sole-source contracts and purchase orders to Choy's company, H2O Process Systems.
⚖ Pleaded guilty to honest-services wire fraud (2022); sentenced to 10 years in federal prison plus a $1.9M forfeiture (Feb 2023).
🔴 The federal public-corruption investigation was reported still active following the convictions, with the Hawai'i Attorney General vowing full accountability. Honolulu Star-Advertiser (Nov 2025) ↗
Active investigations — not charged or convicted
Presumption of innocence. The people below are the subject of an open investigation or official inquiry per public sources and official proceedings (e.g., a Campaign Spending Commission case, an Attorney General target letter). They have not been charged or convicted. Their own responses are included. These are documented facts about a process — not findings of guilt.
Sylvia LukeUNDER INVESTIGATION
Lt. Governor of Hawai'i (since Dec 2022; 24 years in the State House, former Finance chair). On indefinite unpaid leave since April 23, 2026; not seeking re-election.
⚠ UNDER INVESTIGATION - NOT charged or convicted. Presumption of innocence applies. She denies the central allegation. The matter is unresolved.
• The Hawai'i Campaign Spending Commission opened an investigation (Feb 2026) into unreported 2022 campaign contributions (reported figures range $7,800 to ~$16,000, including $10,000 tied to a businessman in a bankruptcy). She says she found the omissions after a media inquiry, amended her reports, and remitted the funds. KITV / Honolulu Star-Advertiser ↗
• She acknowledged accepting $25,100 from a lobbyist (Tobi Solidum and his daughter) linked to the same Cullen/English/Choy bribery network, and returned the money after the lawmakers' guilty pleas; she had a Jan. 2022 dinner with Ty Cullen, who was by then an FBI informant. Honolulu Civil Beat ↗
• The state Attorney General's office sent her a target letter in a public-corruption investigation (April 2026). She took unpaid leave a day after her attorney confirmed it; the Governor said the investigation was taking a toll. Hawai'i News Now ↗
Her response: Her account: she identified herself as possibly the legislator federal authorities described, but says the amount was $10,000 (not $35,000) and there was no paper bag. She released a video stating 'I want you to hear the facts.' Hawai'i Public Radio / KHON2 ↗
County of Maui — Countywide Fraud Risk Assessment (25-01)UNDER INVESTIGATION
Office of the County Auditor · assessment prepared by Spire Hawaiʻi LLP · reported 2026-07-02 · presented to the Council's Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency (GREAT) Committee
⚠ PUBLIC RECORD — a countywide fraud-RISK assessment, NOT a finding of fraud or wrongdoing by any individual. Every item below is from the assessment and its reporting, framed as questions for oversight. Presumption of good faith applies to every named office and employee.
• Two findings: the County's anti-fraud controls were assessed as inadequate, and the County has no fraud-complaint (whistleblower) policy. Source: Fraud Risk Assessment 25-01; Maui Now 2026-07-02.
• Department of Water Supply: 6,223 'direct pay' transactions totaling about $21 million bypassed standard procurement; roughly $5 million of that had no purchase order or contract. Open question: what controls govern 'direct pay,' and who reviews it? Source: 25-01.
• Finance: the assessment flagged purchasing-card 'management override' — the risk that a control can be bypassed by management. Open question: what independent check exists on P-card overrides? Source: 25-01.
• The County has no nepotism policy. Open question: how are hiring conflicts of interest managed without one? Source: 25-01.
• A fraud-risk PERCEPTION gap appeared in the assessment's survey (reported ~86% vs ~95%) — staff and leadership perceive fraud risk differently. Source: 25-01; Maui Now 2026-07-02.
• The assessment issued 5 recommendations. A public fraud hotline is available: 833-908-TIPS. Source: 25-01; Maui Now 2026-07-02.
• The FY2027 Audit Plan added self-initiated projects that track directly to these risks: a direct-pay review, a review of private-jet travel, and a review of vacant positions. Source: 25-01 / County Auditor FY2027 Audit Plan.
Her response: Administration response (Managing Director Nishita): the County concurs with acting on the findings — ~$125,000 budgeted in FY2027 to address anti-fraud gaps, an RFP for anti-fraud/internal-controls services, adoption of a nepotism policy, and Guidehouse screening. This is the County's own stated response, presented to the GREAT Committee. Maui Now (2026-07-02) + County of Maui Fraud Risk Assessment 25-01 ↗
Maui County Board of Ethics — records transparencyUNDER INVESTIGATION
The County's ethics oversight body — c/o the Department of the Corporation Counsel
⚠ PUBLIC BODY / RECORDS entry — NOT an allegation against any person. This tracks the ethics oversight body and the PUBLIC records it holds. Any specific complaint is confidential/handled under the Board's Rules until it acts; nothing here names or accuses an individual.
• The Board of Ethics administers and enforces the County Code of Ethics, issues advisory opinions, reviews financial-disclosure statements and lobbyist registrations, and investigates complaints against County employees and board/commission members. Source: mauicounty.gov/170; Charter provisions.
• Its Advisory Opinions & Decisions are posted PUBLICLY. The Board was reported 'transformed' in early 2026 (Civil Beat, 2026-01-20). Open question: which recent opinions/decisions bear on the 25-01 findings?
• The Fraud Risk Assessment (25-01) found the County has NO nepotism policy and NO fraud-complaint (whistleblower) policy — ethics-infrastructure gaps within the Board's remit. Do the Board's opinions and the 25-01 recommendations point the same way? Source: 25-01.
• Records beyond the posted advisory opinions (complaint dispositions, financial disclosures, lobbyist filings) are being requested via UIPA (HRS 92F) to unlock what is lawfully public — see the staged records request. We request the record; we do not prejudge any complaint.
Her response: The Board publishes advisory opinions/decisions and provides a public complaint process; broader records are obtainable via UIPA. This entry is transparency about the process, not a claim about anyone. Maui County Board of Ethics (mauicounty.gov/170) + Charter + Rules ↗
The State’s own response — recommended vs. enacted
Hawai'i Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct (convened 2022 after the legislator bribery cases) submitted 31 proposals; its chair called it 'a deep moral crisis.' REPORT DELIVERED Dec 2022
Tighter campaign-finance limits, mandatory ethics training for all legislators/state employees, and a ban on campaign fundraisers during legislative session. ENACTED 2022 (5 of 15 interim recommendations became law)
Require RECUSAL (not mere disclosure) when an official has a conflict of interest on a vote. RECOMMENDED - tracks directly to Kilo Aupuni's officials-scorecard recusal monitoring
Fund the state Attorney General to investigate and prosecute white-collar crime and public corruption (SB2930). PROPOSED; more anti-corruption bills introduced 2025
Fund anti-fraud work — ~$125K in FY2027 + an RFP for anti-fraud/internal-controls services + Guidehouse screening. IN PROGRESS · County stated commitment
Stant stole through SOLE-SOURCE procurement -> that is exactly why Kilo Aupuni's bids-watch tracks every county contract and flags sole-source awards.
The reform that matters most -- RECUSAL over disclosure -- is exactly what the officials-scorecard tracks from the minutes.
Bribes followed the MONEY into contracts and campaigns -> donor-watch and patterns join campaign money to votes and contracts.
The lawful path is already on the books: HRS 84 (ethics), HRS 11 (campaign finance), HRS 103D (procurement), HRS 92/92F (Sunshine/UIPA), federal honest-services fraud.
'Direct pay' that bypasses procurement is the same procurement-bypass pattern the Sole-Source Watch tracks (the 'Stant mechanism') — see also Contracts × Donors and Wildfire Recovery Watch. Public record, framed as questions.