Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 12, Number 11, 1 November 1995 — Carpenter failed to secure BOT confidence [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Carpenter failed to secure BOT confidence

by Rowena Akana Trustee-at-large At the September 21, 1995 meeting of the Board of Trustees on Kaua'i,

five of the six trustees who took a Board position to dismiss Dante Carpenter appropriated $150,000 to defend themselves against a lawsuit filed by Mr. Carpenter in whieh they were named as defendants. Some beneficiaries have raised eoncerns over this. They ask "Why don't you iust pay

him and get the matter over with?" And rightly so. Certainly, no trustee would dream of spending beneficiary

money frivolously — no trustee that hopes to get re-elected, at least! First of all, it should also be noted that although $150,000 was appropriated, this does not necessarily

| mean that all $150,000 will be spent. Be that as it may, the far more important question remains: why was this action taken? Of the three potential lawsuits from former employees that I mentioned in my article last month, two have been settled out of court for $35,000 and lawyer fees have alreadv added un to at

least $2,700. (Lawyer fees for these matters could in fact add up to considerably more than $2,700. The Board

attorney received $32,000 in a two week period in late July and early August. The Administration has yet to provide me with explanations of her billings. The third potential suit has just been formally filed and will end up costing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs an as yet unknown amount. So, just in the area of employee relations and settlements alone, Mr. Carpenter has already cost the trust at least $37,700.) In addition, more expenses in legal fees and/or settlements are a virtual certainty in the near future. Is this the kind of person who deserves lo succeed in an effort to blackmail the Board of Trustees?! Should even more trust dollars be given to someone who was unable to do their job effectively?! Obviously not.

In voting for the money necessary to counter Mr. Carpenter's frivolous lawsuit. we are sending out a message loud and clear: the Board of Trustees will not be satisfied with anything less than excellence ffom our top offīcers. To settle for mediocrity would be a serious breach of our trust responsibilities. lndeed, if we had retained Mr. Carpenter, we would have done far more than settle for mediocrity. We would

have retained an individual who, for all of his personal appeal, has made personnel and financial decisions that have been less than prudent. Is it too mueh to expect that the top officers of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs be accountable, just as top officers in corporations are? As Chief Executive Officers may be fired by the Board of Directors of private corporations, why then would we not hold the "CEO" of our organization to the same standards? Without a contract, Mr. Carpenter was an "at-will employee" subject to dismissal at any time by a simple majority. Nevertheless, he was fired with one month's severance pay by six trustees, including Trustees Akana, Beamer, DeSoto, Hee, Kamali'i and Keale. Trustees Aiona and Akaka voted

against this motion, with Trustee Kealoha absent. Just as a simple majority could have dismissed Mr. Carpenter, so too could a simple majority have given him a contract. During the last 18 months Mr. Carpenter had failed both at the committee level and at the Board level to secure the five votes needed to approve a contract. Thus, he had never succeeded in winning the full confidence of the Board of Trustees.