Wednesday, April 11, was a good day for Peter Young. A room full of people, except for a handful, testified all day about his integrity and his good works as head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, a job he’s held since January 2003. About 95 percent of written testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture, and Hawaiian Affairs — a four-inch-thick stack of letters and emails — supported his reappointment for another four years. More than a few stated that Young is the best DLNR director in the department’s history; his role in the establishment of the state’s Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge and the recent adoption of rules protecting severely degraded coastal resources and bottomfish stocks was noted many times.
The hearings on Thursday, Friday, and the following Tuesday and Wednesday, however, were excruciating, if not to Young, to many of those attending the hearings or watching the live broadcast on `Oleolo’s Capitol TV. They lasted all day long, veered — for hours — into areas that appeared to have little to do with Young’s performance, and were often interrupted by Senate sessions and seemingly endless closed sessions. Friday’s hearing, in fact, was held almost entirely in executive session.
By press time, the committee had not voted on Governor Lingle’s request to reappoint Young. Even so, the hearing iteslf is noteworthy for the testimony provided by subpoenaed witnesses, which revealed alarming accusations and discoveries about how some of the DLNR’s divisions have been run both during Young’s tenure and in the years preceding it.
Several of the subpoenaed witnesses discussed serious management, financial, and accountability problems at the DLNR’s historic preservation, boating, and enforcement divisions. Many of those problems are longstanding and have been detailed in a number of audits over the years. Not so well known, however, are several egregious problems at the Bureau of Conveyances, which is tasked with recording all land transactions in the state. In fact, much of the testimony received in executive session involves potentially criminal or unethical activities at the bureau that are being investigated by the Department of the Attorney General and the state Ethics Commission.
Although Young is not the subject of the investigations, the committee members grilled him about how he chose to manage the alleged wrongdoing at the bureau. While documents subpoenaed by the companies highlighted problems with employees leaving work without authorization, gifts from title companies, checks received by the bureau but made out to individual employees, and preferential treatment of certain companies by bureau staff, among other things, the bulk of questions from the committee revolved around the access to and manipulation of bureau documents by people outside the department. Some of these issues are the subject of the ongoing investigations and were first brought to light by acting deputy registrar Dennis Ihara, who has worked at the bureau since August 2006.
In the late 1990s, Title Guaranty of Hawai`i, an escrow and title company that Young said accounts for 60 percent of the transactions at the Bureau of Conveyances, gave the bureau two computers that would allow the company online access to state records that had been scanned and digitized into a system known as LCATS (land court automated title system). Since then, other title companies and individuals have been granted access, via a password, for a fee of $150 a month, Young said. A couple of the senators pointed out the serious problems with this arrangement.
First of all, since digitizing many of its documents, the DLNR has not amended its rules to allow it to chrge fees to access the systme. What’s more, the DLNR doesn’t seem to have any contracts with the subscribers requiring payment.
When asked by Sen. Jill Tokuda whether there were any contracts for these subscribers, Young said, “The documentation has been challenged…. The records are incomplete. Staff is trying to get current agreements.”
When asked whether the department was indeed charging subscribers $150 a month, Young noted that he had a list of subscribers, but said that his fiscal office provided him with only a summary of income, which did not identify payments from specific companies.
Wen. Russell Kokubun noted that the two computers have a note on them that says, “Do not turn off this computer.” He added that, according to testimony, whenever there is a power outage or the computers go offline for some reason, Title Guaranty immediately calls the bureau. On the bureau’s website, by far the most frequently asked question is, “Is there a way t access recorded document information online?” The answer: “Currently, there is no way to access recorded information online. Please contact the Bureau of Conveyances … for more information.”
Eclipsing the concerns about the questionable practice of allowing private companies and certain individuals exclusive access to a critically important government record system and the apparently loose financial arrangement between subscribers and the department were allegations that someone outside the bureau had manipulated a bureau document via this system. Young said he had been told by his technical staff that the files available through the online system are “read-only” files that don’t allow any editing by people outside the bureau. When pressed by committee members, however, Young admitted that he was later presented with evidence — a printout of a computer screen — that “raised questions about whether someone could manipulate data.”
“It was a potential allegation. It was not a known fact, but it certainly was an issue of concern,” Young said.
Young said that when he first realized the seriousness of what seemed to be occurring, he directed his deputy, Bob Masuda, to stop his and Ihara’s internal investigation and bring the matter to the attention of the state attorney general. That was done, he said, in late 2006 or early 2007.
Sen. Clayton Hee criticized Young for failing to explicitly and immediately notify his staff that such activities were prohibited. Sen. Tokuda also criticized Young for not immediately taking action to protect the system from outsiders. “Did it not cross your mind that you should … determine whether or not it would be appropriate to turn it off or pull [the two computers] from the system? It is my understanding the computer was up and running up until this past weekend,” she said. Sen. Kokubun added that Young should have his tech staff look into whether firewalls exist to protect documents posted on DLNR systems from unauthorized manipulation.
Young explained that he did not bring the problem to the attention of bureau employees because he did not want the investigation compromised. With regard to the actions taken to protect the LCATS system, Young explained that Masuda was tasked with taking care of it.
“I delegated actions to him. I trust him and I know what he’s working on it and I know he’s concerned and passionate about it,” he said.
Once the investigation started, however, emails among Masuda, Ihara, and Dennis Naganuma, an investigator with the attorney general’s office, suggest that Young was impeding the investigation by insisting on reviewing documents before they were given to the AG’s office.
A March 1 email from Naganuma to Ihara states, “I submitted a list of documents that we (AGs) want to look at. I know you don’t approve of Peter being involved, but this may turn out to be a good thing. Peter has one of two options. Produce the documents we have asked for or explain to the First Deputy why he doesn’t or cannot get them. Peter needs to be held accountable as well as Carl [Watanabe, the registrar at the bureau] and this may be the way to do that.”
Young was asked a number of times by Senators Hee and Sam Slom if he, at any time, impeded any investigation.
“In no way did I do that,” he told them.
— Teresa Dawson
Leave a Reply