HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
State of Hawaii · Bishop Square, 1001 Bishop Street, ASB Tower 970 · Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Resolution of Charge
2019-1
(COMPL-C-17-00001-01)
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean
Recreation, Kauai Office, Building Maintenance Worker’s Alleged Violations of
Fair Treatment Law
April 9, 2019

The Hawaii State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) has resolved a Charge and
Further Statement of Alleged Violation issued against Bruce Kelekoma, Building
Maintenance Worker I, Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”), Division
of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Kauai Office (“DOBOR-Kauai”), for alleged violations
of the State Ethics Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) chapter 84.
On May 17, 2018, the Commission issued Charge COMPL-C-17-00001-01
(“Charge”) against Bruce Kelekoma (“Respondent Kelekoma” or “Respondent”), alleging
that his conduct violated the State Ethics Code. Respondent filed an Answer to the
Charge on June 21, 2018. The Commission issued a Further Statement of Alleged
Violation (“Further Statement”) on January 24, 2019. Respondent filed an Answer to
the Further Statement on March 6, 2019.
I.

Facts

Respondent Kelekoma admitted and declared, under penalty of perjury, that the
following facts are true and correct:
a) Respondent Kelekoma, at all times relevant herein, was employed by the
Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”), a state agency, in
the Kauai office of the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation
(“DOBOR-Kauai”). He has worked for DOBOR-Kauai since approximately
2013 as a Building Maintenance Worker (“BMW”) I.
b) Respondent Kelekoma, at all times relevant herein, was a state employee
as defined in HRS § 84-3. As a state employee, Respondent Kelekoma
was required to comply with the State Ethics Code.

Telephone: (808) 587-0460 Email: ethics@hawaiiethics.org

Website: http://ethics.hawaii.gov/

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 2
Use of State resources for personal and/or private business purposes
c) In or around July 2014, the then-District Manager of the DOBOR-Kauai
office, Joseph Borden (“former District Manager Borden” or “Borden”),
used his State pCard, and State funds, to purchase $2,753.89 in
automobile parts and repair services from Kauai Auto Repair LLC for
Respondent Kelekoma’s personal benefit. Among other things, former
District Manager Borden purchased four new tires and alignment for
Respondent Kelekoma’s personal truck, claiming in procurement
documents that the purchase was for a DOBOR-Kauai 2012 Ford F-350
truck with license plate E-621. Borden had previously claimed to
purchase new tires for that same DOBOR-Kauai truck in January 2012
(when the vehicle was first purchased) and again in January 2014, and
Respondent Kelekoma subsequently claimed to purchase new tires for the
same DOBOR-Kauai truck (E-621) in August 2016. In a procurement
document, Borden claimed that the July 2014 purchase of new tires – six
months after the January 2014 purchase of new tires, was necessary
because “E621 tires are worn and treads are showing.” In fact, the July
2014 purchase was for Respondent Kelekoma’s personal benefit.
Respondent Kelekoma accepted the automobile parts and services for
Respondent’s personal truck knowing that State funds were used to pay
for these parts and services.
d) In or around December 2014, Borden requested approval to dispose of a
DOBOR-Kauai 2003 GMC truck that had been involved in an accident; the
front of the vehicle was damaged, but the cabin and rear of the vehicle
were undamaged and would have been valuable for parts. The disposal
memorandum indicated that the vehicle would be disposed of at the Puhi
Metal Facility. In or around 2015 or 2016, after Borden received approval
to dispose of the vehicle, Respondent Kelekoma took possession of the
tires from that GMC truck for his personal use, said to be apparently
dropped off by another DOBOR-Kauai employee.
e) Respondent Kelekoma’s family leases pasture land in Anahola from the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The Kelekomas’ pasture is used to
raise cattle. On or about October 14, 2016, Respondent Kelekoma and
several other DOBOR-Kauai employees were tasked with disposing of a
55-gallon barrel of diesel fuel that had washed up on a Kauai beach. The
fuel should have been disposed of as hazardous waste at the Nawiliwili
Small Boat Harbor. Instead, Respondent Kelekoma transported the diesel
fuel to the Kelekomas’ pasture land in Anahola on state work time, using a
state truck, so that it could be used for personal purposes. Respondent
Kelekoma poured the diesel fuel on fence posts as a preservative at the
Anahola pasture land, rather than disposing of the fuel as hazardous
waste.

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 3

f) On or about March 21, 2017, Respondent Kelekoma directed DOBORKauai employees under his supervision to cut kiawe wood, bring it back to
the DOBOR-Kauai facility, and/or load wood into his personal truck for his
and others’ personal use. The work order Respondent Kelekoma
prepared for the day directed the DOBOR-Kauai employees to “bring back
good timber,” and Respondent Kelekoma took kiawe wood for his
personal use.
g) On or around April 6, 2017, Respondent Kelekoma used his state pCard,
and state funds, to purchase light bulbs for his personal Nissan truck.
Specifically, he purchased two stoplight bulbs for $1.29 each and a
parking light bulb for $0.99 (both plus state General Excise Tax) from
Pacific Service and Development (also known as Napa Auto Parts) in
Lihue. At the time, DOBOR-Kauai did not own a 1996 Nissan, but
Respondent Kelekoma owned a 1996 Nissan pickup truck.
h) In or around May of 2017, Respondent Kelekoma used state time and
equipment to replace the carburetor in Borden’s personal string trimmer.
i) On multiple occasions between 2013 and 2018, Respondent Kelekoma
took DOBOR-Kauai equipment away from state premises for his personal
use.
Conflicts of Interests
j) As part of his state duties, Respondent Kelekoma periodically made
purchases from Kauai Marine and Mower, a marine equipment store. For
example, in or around August 2016, Respondent Kelekoma purchased
$458.26 of supplies from Kauai Marine and Mower. Similarly, as part of
his state duties, Respondent Kelekoma periodically provided
recommendations to former District Manager Borden and/or others as to
whether to purchase items for DOBOR-Kauai from Kauai Marine and
Mower. For example, in or around December 2015, Respondent
Kelekoma participated in discussions with his supervisors regarding the
purchase of a trailer from Kauai Marine and Mower. As such, Respondent
took official state action affecting and/or involving Kauai Marine and
Mower by making decisions and recommendations about purchasing
equipment and other items from Kauai Marine and Mower.
k) On two occasions thereafter – on November 17, 2016, and again on
November 29, 2016 – Respondent Kelekoma performed paid services for
Kauai Marine and Mower. On each occasion, Kauai Marine and Mower
paid Respondent Kelekoma two hundred dollars for his services.

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 4
Certifications of disposal of state equipment; testimony to Ethics Commission
investigator
l) On March 3, 2017, Respondent Kelekoma signed a Certificate of Disposal
for a 25-gallon FEMCO sprayer belonging to DOBOR-Kauai, in which he
certified the following: “I certify that I have participated in or witnessed the
disposal, trade-in or sale of all items as approved on the above-referenced
application and acknowledge that any mark or decal indicating State of
Hawaii ownership has been removed or eradicated.” In fact, Respondent
Kelekoma did not participate in or witness the disposal, trade-in, or sale of
the sprayer.
m) On May 23, 2017, Respondent Kelekoma signed a Certificate of Disposal
for a Tiger Cat 48” zero turning radius riding lawnmower belonging to
DOBOR-Kauai, in which he certified the following: “I certify that I have
participated in or witnessed the disposal, trade-in or sale of all items as
approved on the above-referenced application and acknowledge that any
mark or decal indicating State of Hawaii ownership has been removed or
eradicated.” In fact, Respondent Kelekoma did not participate in or
witness the disposal, trade-in, or sale of the lawnmower.
n) On February 23, 2018, Respondent Kelekoma appeared in Honolulu,
pursuant to a subpoena, for an investigatory interview with the
Commission’s staff, where he was questioned regarding this equipment.
o) Respondent was interviewed as part of an official investigation and was
questioned about actions taken and knowledge he possessed as a result
of his state position. Prior to the interview, Respondent was informed of
his right to appear with an attorney or union representative of his
choosing, and Respondent attended the interview with a union
representative.
p) At the outset of the February 23, 2018 interview, Respondent Kelekoma
was placed under oath by a commissioned notary public.
q) The Commission’s Investigator questioned Respondent Kelekoma
regarding the May 23, 2017 disposal of the Tiger Cat riding lawnmower,
purchased in 2014 for approximately $8,060.37 by DOBOR-Kauai.
r) Respondent Kelekoma admitted, under oath, that he signed the May 23,
2017 Certificate of Disposal for the Tiger Cat lawnmower. He then
testified as follows:

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 5
INVESTIGATOR:

Okay. So you were certifying that you
disposed of the Tiger Cat?

KELEKOMA:

Yes.

INVESTIGATOR:

And where did you, what did you do with it?

KELEKOMA:

I took it to the metal recycling.

INVESTIGATOR:

Okay. And did you receive any sort of receipt
for it?

KELEKOMA:

No.

INVESTIGATOR:

Was there any record that you took it there?

KELEKOMA:

No.

INVESTIGATOR:

How did you take it there?

KELEKOMA:

With the trailer.

INVESTIGATOR:

Did anybody go with you?

KELEKOMA:

No.

s) The Commission’s Investigator interviewed Respondent Kelekoma again
on March 16, 2018. Respondent Kelekoma was again placed under oath.
Now represented by an attorney, Respondent Kelekoma testified as
follows:
INVESTIGATOR:

Okay. I’m just going to ask you, what
happened to the Tiger Cat?

KELEKOMA:

I don’t know.

INVESTIGATOR:

The last time we spoke, you testified that you
disposed of it directly. Are you saying now that
you do not know what happened to it?

KELEKOMA:

Yes, I can recall that, on that, that I was told to
dispose but I didn't.

...

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 6
INVESTIGATOR:

Okay. So here's the thing. The last time you
were pretty specific about where you took it
and that you just dropped it somewhere, and I
just want to be clear. Now you're saying that
you did not in fact take it like you had told us
last time?

KELEKOMA:

Yes.

t) In the February 23, 2018 interview, Respondent Kelekoma also testified
regarding the disposal of the sprayer in March 2017. He admitted, under
oath, that he signed the Certificate of Disposal on March 3, 2017, and then
testified as follows:
INVESTIGATOR:

And when you certified that you participated or
witnessed the disposal of the tank, how exactly
was it disposed of?

KELEKOMA:

I took it to the transfer station.

...
INVESTIGTOR:

So the transfer station, where was that?

KELEKOMA:

At Lihue, past the airport.

INVESTIGATOR:

And how soon after the accident occurred that
broke the tank did you take it to the transfer
station?

KELEKOMA:

After we got, I signed off on this disposal.

INVESTIGATOR:

And how long passed between the time it got
damaged and the time you signed off on the
disposal?

KELEKOMA:

About, I don't remember.

INVESTIGATOR:

Well was it days?

KELEKOMA:

About a week or so.

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 7
u) At the second interview with Commission staff on March 16, 2018, after
being placed under oath, Respondent Kelekoma testified as follows:

II.

INVESTIGATOR:

[You told us that] when the tank broke you
disposed of the tank, the hoses, the wires, and
the new pump. You remember telling us that?

KELEKOMA:

Can I recall on that one?

INVESTIGATOR:

Sure.

KELEKOMA:

Yeah, I mean, I wrote the disposal on that, but I
didn't get rid of the tank. I was just told to
dispose of it, but I didn't.

INVESTIGATOR:

And where did it end up?

KELEKOMA:

I don't know.

The State Ethics Code, HRS Chapter 84
A.

Constitutional Mandate and Statutory Purpose

The State Ethics Code arises from the declaration contained in the State
Constitution that “[t]he people of Hawaii believe that public officers and employees must
exhibit the highest standards of ethical conduct and that these standards come from the
personal integrity of each individual in government.”1 To this end, the Hawaii
Constitution further directs that the legislature enact a code of ethics that applies to all
appointed and elected state officers and employees.
In accordance with this constitutional mandate, the legislature enacted the State
Ethics Code and charged the Commission with administering and enforcing the law “so
that public confidence in public servants will be preserved.”2 Additionally, the legislature
explicitly directed that the State Ethics Code be liberally construed to promote high
standards of ethical conduct in state government. HRS § 84-1. It is in this context that
the Commission examines every employee’s actions.

1

Hawaii State Constitution, Art. XIV.

2

HRS Chapter 84, Preamble.

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 8
B.

Application of the State Ethics Code to Respondent Kelekoma

As an employee of DOBOR-Kauai, Respondent Kelekoma is a state employee
for purposes of the State Ethics Code.3 As a state employee, Respondent Kelekoma is
required to comply with the State Ethics Code.
HRS § 84-13 (the Fair Treatment Law) prohibits a state employee from using her
or his state position to obtain unwarranted privileges, advantages, or benefits for the
employee or others. HRS § 84-14 (the Conflicts of Interests Law) prohibits a state
employee from acquiring a financial interest, such as employment, in any business
“which the employee has reason to believe may be directly involved in official action to
be taken by the employee.”
The Commission investigated Respondent Kelekoma’s actions and believes that
Respondent Kelekoma likely violated the Fair Treatment law by using state time,
equipment, supplies, and personnel for his personal benefit and/or the benefit of other
individuals or private businesses. Diverting state resources for one’s personal use
raises serious concerns under the State Ethics Code and undermines the trust placed in
government officials by the people of Hawaii. In this case, Respondent admitted to
knowingly taking possession for personal use of items and services that were
purchased using State funds. This behavior is unacceptable.
The Commission also believes that Respondent Kelekoma likely violated the
Conflicts of Interests law by acquiring outside employment with Kauai Marine and
Mower, when he had repeatedly taken official action involving Kauai Marine and Mower.
Finally, the Commission is particularly troubled by Respondent’s testimony, as
quoted above, which suggests – at the very least – a lack of cooperation by the
Respondent in the Commission’s investigation. See HRS § 84-36 (“The ethics
commission may request and shall receive from every department, division, board,
bureau, commission, or other agency of the state cooperation and assistance in the
performance of its duties.”).
Pursuant to the Commission’s agreement with the Respondent, this matter is
referred to DLNR for further action as appropriate.

3

HRS § 84-3.

 Resolution of Charge 2019-1
Page 9
III.

Resolution of Charge

The Commission believes that, based on the facts admitted above,4 Respondent
Kelekoma likely violated the Fair Treatment Law (HRS § 84-13) and the Conflicts of
Interests Law (HRS § 84-14(b)).
Respondent Kelekoma has not previously been the subject of a Commission
charge or investigation.
Given the likely violations of the State Ethics Code, the Commission believes it is
reasonable, fair, and in the public interest to resolve the Charge and Further Statement
of Alleged Violation by (1) issuing this Resolution of Charge, (2) requiring Respondent
Kelekoma to pay an administrative penalty of $4,500 to the State of Hawaii, and
(3) referring this matter to DLNR for further action as appropriate.

4

This Resolution does not make formal findings, but relies on the facts admitted by
Respondent Kelekoma.