OHA Board Defers CEO Appointment to November 2
from OpenHearings.com, October 22, 2026
HONOLULU — The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Board of Trustees voted Thursday to defer a final decision on appointing a permanent Administrator and Chief Executive Officer until November 2, 2026, after hours of public testimony from Native Hawaiian beneficiaries, elected officials, and community leaders who urged the board to reject the joint committee's recommendation of Todd Apo in favor of interim CEO Summer Silva.
The 8-1 vote to defer — with Trustee Hulu Lindsey casting the lone dissent — came after an extraordinary outpouring of opposition from the community, including Maui County Councilmember Keani Rollins-Fernandez, State Representative Ikaika Hussey, Senator Kurt Fevella, and others.
"She is the right person at the right time," said Mehana Hind, representing the Hawaiian Council. [02:24:00]
The joint Budget and Finance and Beneficiary Advocacy and Empowerment Committee had voted 5-4 the previous day in favor of Apo, a former Honolulu City Council member and one-time Howard Hughes Corporation executive. Critics highlighted his past opposition to the designation of West Maui as a surface and groundwater management area — a move they said worked against the interests of Lahaina residents and kalo farmers.
"He directly opposed OHA's fundamental position in restoring mauka to makai stream flow," said attorney Kaulu Lu'uwai during online testimony. [03:02:46]
Defenders of Apo, including Trustees Akina, Waihe'e, and Alapa, emphasized his administrative acumen and performance during candidate interviews. "His approach to implementing the strategic plan, growing the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund — he had the best answers of the six candidates we initially interviewed by far," said Trustee Waihe'e. [04:05:02]
Chair Kahele, who opened informal board discussion before the deferral motion, called the appointment "one of the most consequential decisions for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in its history" and asked each trustee to explain their reasoning publicly. [02:13:18]
Trustee Akina, who voted for Apo, argued the CEO's role is primarily administrative, not advocacy-driven. "The criteria we need for an executive is very simply the person who will get things done for the board," he said. [04:00:00] He also praised the search process as fair and thorough, noting over 130 candidates applied.
Trustee Lindsey, who nominated Apo in committee, cited her dissatisfaction with Silva's internal management, saying "our employees are not that happy with her. Not all of them." [04:07:00]
Chair Kahele acknowledged Apo's presence in the room and praised him for attending. "I can't imagine that was easy," Kahele said, noting OHA is a "divided board" and that "this is the toughest job I've ever had to endure." [04:37:47]
Councilmember Rollins-Fernandez, who flew from Moloka'i for the meeting, questioned the timing entirely. "Five trustees knew to vote for Todd. Zero transparency," she said, adding that holding the vote days before the November election was problematic. [02:33:46]
Representative Hussey echoed calls for delay. "I think this question is not ripe. I think that we should wait until after the election cycle," he said. [02:19:02]
Chair Kahele explained the consequences of further delay: if no decision is made by November 2, the board could be unable to convene for up to five weeks due to the election, certification of results, and swearing-in of new trustees. "If we have a new trustee, we start all over again," he said. [04:46:00].
* * * * *
In other Board of Trustees business, BOT Item 26-12 passed on second reading. A third reading is required. Trustee Kelii Akina outlined his concerns with the proposal which changes rules governing disputes among Trustees:
[01:07:50] Trustee Akina: …We're voting on a matter today that proposes the revision of our executive policy manual. Now, if this were part of a routine cleaning up of our books, so to speak, and updating them, it would be a good thing to do. But I think we have to be realistic that we are in the midst of a conflict between trustees on the board.
A group of trustees has disagreed with the majority of trustees on the board. They have been exercising their fiduciary duty and their right to stand up and speak freely, which includes their First Amendment rights. The attempt to change the policy manual is very clearly an attempt to give an advantage to the majority trustees in terms of prosecuting the minority. That's not how things are done in America, where we have free speech, and that's not how things are done in a trust, where the trustees have a fiduciary duty to speak out.
My concerns regarding action item BOT 26-12, the executive policy manual, are as follows:
First, a trustee who makes a complaint could help decide his own complaint. The existing policy excludes both parties from deliberations. The amendment allows the complaining trustee to deliberate and vote on whether another trustee violated the code and should be sanctioned. So if this is passed today, you will see that the trustee who made the complaint will be able to sit in judgment on the ones he complains against.
Number two, a complaining chairperson could also control the hearing. The amendment does not expressly prevent a chairperson who filed the complaint from presiding, setting response deadlines and managing presentations. This creates concern about impartial treatment.
Third, the amendment does not clearly follow the conflict rules it keeps. Appendix 7 requires a conflicted trustee to refrain from discussion, voting, and influencing other trustees. The new language permits the complaining trustee to participate without clearly explaining how these restrictions still apply. Basically, it allows the majority who complain against a minority of trustees to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Fourth, trustees could lose the required opportunity to resolve a matter before escalation. The existing policy requires preliminary discussion with the trustees to obtain facts and seek resolution. The amendment makes that step optional, allowing a complaint to proceed directly toward a hearing.
Five, confidential materials could be publicly released with fewer votes than the bylaws require. The amendment allows specified disclosures with five or six votes, while bylaws article 16b requires unanimity for covered public disclosures. These requirements need to be reconciled before approval.
Six, the executive policy manual would contain two different privilege waiver rules. The amendment permits attorney-client privilege waiver with six votes, but another section still requires approval of the full BOT trustees needed need one clear rule governing disclosure.
Seven, there's no guaranteed minimum time to prepare a defense. The amendment promises a quote, reasonable opportunity to respond, but leaves the schedule to the presiding trustee. It also does not state who must prove the allegation or how much proof is required.
Eight, It is unclear whether the new rules would apply to existing complaints. The amendment does not expressly say whether pending complaints or earlier conduct will be handled under the existing or amended procedures. Changing the rules during an unresolved matter could affect its fairness.
Nine, the confidentiality instructions are inconsistent. One provision says complaint materials remain confidential until the hearing. Other provisions say disclosure must follow applicable law. Trustees need clear instructions on what must be released, what remains protected, and when.
And ten, some protections are added. The amendment requires separate findings and sanction votes for each respondent and limits sanctions that interfere with lawful trustee duties. These improvements do not resolve the concerns about the complaint participation or control of the hearing.
To summarize:
One, the complaining trustee could help decide their own complaint.
Two, a complaining chairperson could also control the hearing.
Three, the amendment does not clearly follow the conflict rules it keeps.
Four, trustees could lose the required opportunity to resolve the matter before escalation.
Five, confidential materials could be publicly released with fewer votes than the bylaws require.
Six, the EPM would contain two different privilege waiver rules.
Seven, there is no guaranteed minimum time to prepare a defense.
Eight, it is unclear whether new rules would apply to existing complaints.
Nine, the confidentiality instructions are inconsistent.
Ten, some protections are added.
My fellow trustees, If we pass this change to the Executive Policy Manual, we will be an embarrassment before the people of Hawaii and all government agencies. It is very clear that our Executive Policy Manual would be held hostage to political motivations. It is so transparent that anyone who views what has taken place at this boardroom over few months can see that the rules are being changed in the middle of the game in order to give some trustees and advantage over others.
All trustees were elected by the people of Hawaii to serve together equally in order to decide with cooperation and debate amongst themselves as to the course of action to take. And we need to affirm that. So I strongly urge you today not to embarrass the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, not to embarrass yourselves, and to reject the policy change recommendations to the executive policy manual.
---30---