Title: Hanabusa v. Lingle. S.Ct. Order, filed 12/04/2008 [pdf]. S.Ct. Order, filed 01/20/2009 [pdf].

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

se wesr’s. REPORTER ***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

=--000--~

 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Individually and in her capacity as
Senate President and NORMAN SAKAMOTO, Individually
‘and in his capacity as Chair of the Senate
Committee on Education, Petitioners,

     
 

Wo. 29392
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

December 15, 2008

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

Per Curiam. In this original proceeding, petitioners
Colleen Hanabusa, individually and in her capacity as Senate
President, and Norman Sakamoto, individually and in his capacity
as Chair of the Senate Committee on Education (petitioners),
petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing Linda
Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawai'i (respondent), to
forthwith noninate six candidates to the University of Hawaii
Board of Regents from the list of qualified candidates duly
presented to respondent on February 21, 2008 by the Candidate
Advisory Council pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) §
304A-104.5(b) (Supp. 2007).

on December 4, 2008, we issued an order granting the
petition and directed respondent to nominate, within thirty days,
six regent candidates from the list of qualified candidates duly

presented to respondent on February 21, 2008 by the Candidate
. WALL

 

Advisory Council.
1. Background

The 2005 legislature adopted $.B8. 1256, H.D. 1, which
proposed to amend the Hawai'i Constitution, article X, section 6,
to modify the appointment process for the University of Hawaii
Board of Regents (BOR) by requiring the governor to select BOR
candidates from pools of qualified candidates presented to the
governor by a candidate advisory council. In adopting $.3. 1256,
wD. 1,

(A) [was) the intention of the legislature that

the existing menbers of the board of regents of

the University of Hawaii serve their full terms

of office. As each term expire[d], the regent

wlould) be replaced by an appointed senber

Screened and proposed by the candidate advisory

council.
S.B. 1256, H.D. 1, 23rd Leg., Reg. Sess. (2005).

‘The proposed amendment to article X, section 6 was
ratified by Hawai'l voters on Novenber 7, 2006. Article x,
section 6, as amended, provides in relevant part:

‘There shall be a board of regents of the

University of Hawaii, the menbers of which shall

be nominated and, by and with the advice and

consent of the senate, appointed by the governor

from pools of qualified candidates presented to

the governor by the candidate advisory counsel

for the board of regents of the University of

Hawaii, as provided by law.
Hawai'i Constitution, article X, section 6.

The amendment to article X, section 6 was implemented
by the 2007 legislature by Act 56. Section 1 of Act 56 stated
the Act’s primary purpose of establishing the BOR candidate

advisory council and added that:
os+ FOR PUI «TS AND PAC

+. (T]he legislature renews its

previously stated intent, as provided in Senate

BAll No, 1256 (2005), that “the existing members

of the board of regents of the University of

Hawaii serve their full terms of office. As each

ter expires, the regent will be replaced by an

appointed menber screened and proposed by the

Candidate advisory councii(.]"
2007 Haw. Sess. Laws Act $6 (Act 56), § 1, at 92.

Section 2 of Act 56 amended HRS chapter 304A (Supp.
2006) (University of Hawaii System) by adding a new section
establishing the BOR candidate advisory council. Section 3 of
Act 56 amended HRS § 26-11 (1993) (Executive and Administrative
Departments, University of Hawaii) by increasing the membership
of the BOR from twelve to fifteen members and with a specified

number of members repr

 

nting different geographic areas.
Section 4 of Act 56 amended HRS § 304A-104 (Supp. 2006) (Regents;
appointment; tenures qualifications; meetings) by amending
subsection (a), in relevant part, as follows:

(a). . « The term of each menber shall be
[fortouryeers7] Live vears{.] . . . Every
menber may serve beyond the expiration date of
the menber’s term of appointment until the
member's successor has been appointed [end-hes

quetitied-) by the governor and contimed by the
senate in accordance with article x, section 6 of

th Henbers shal

ore than tuo consecutive five-vear tema:

provided that the members whe are initially
ction 26 ary

‘enauing_tive-vear tems, If a menber is to be
Appointed to a second term of five vears, the

senate shall consider the question of whether to
Tecontimm the nenber at least one hundred twenty

tive mo

not_in session within one hundred twenty dave

rior ts oh
= he nenber
 

see ul REPORTER

which the senate is authorized to consider the
question of reconfirmation,

2007 Haw, Sess. Laws Act 56, § 4 at 95. Section 5 of Act 56
provided that:

Notwithstanding the requirements of section
304K-104, [HRS], as it read prior the effective
date of this Act, the terms of those members of
the board of regents of the University of Hawaii
that are to expire on or before June 30, 2007,
shall be extended until the earlier of June 30,
2008, or until such time as new menbers of the
board of regents have been appointed pursuant to
the appointment process established pursuant to
this Act, at which tine their terms shall expire;
provided’ that the current menbers shall serve
their full terms.

 

 

2007 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 56, $5 at 96. Act 56 was effected on
May 1, 2007, over respondent's veto.

on July 1, 2007, the Candidate Advisory Council (caC)
was appointed. At that time, there were ten BOR menbers. Three
menbers’s terms expired in 2009 and 2011, five menbers’s terms
expired on June 30, 2007, and to menbers’s terms expired on June
30, 2008. ‘The CAC was thus tasked with qualifying and screening

candidates for twelve of the fifteen BOR seata.

 

on February 21, 2008, the CAC presented respondent with
a List of twenty-two candidates to fill the twelve BOR seats.
‘The list was copied to petitioners in their capacities as Senate
President and Senate Education Committee Chair.

on March 31, 2008, respondent nominated, from the CAC's
candidate list: (1) Catherine Lagareta and Teena Rasmussen for

the two at large seats, (2) Harvey Tajiri and Carl Carlson, Jr.

 

for the two Hawaii County seats, and (3) Artemio Baxa for the one

Maui County s

 

tt. The nominations were submitted to petitioner
 

)R PUBLICA’ .WAFT REI

   

Hanabusa and members of the Senate on April 1, 2008.

on April 1, 2008, petitioner Sakamoto wrote respondent,
acknowledging receipt of the five nominations for the twelve BOR
seats and requesting the date that seven more nominations would
be submitted “so that [the Senate] may act upon [the twelve
nominations] before the close of the session.” Petitioner
Sakamoto explained that the Senate had anticipated receiving, by
then, all twelve nominations and he asked respondent to “please
provide reasons for the delay of the seven nominees so that we
might understand the circunstances which prompted the delay.”
Petitioner Sakamoto made the same inquiry and request to
respondent on April 7, 2008 when respondent did not respond.

on April 11, 2008, the Governor's Office responded to
petitioner Sakamoto. It explained that it received that morning,
from the CAC, an additional candidate for the Honolulu County
seat to replace candidate Janes Donovan and it would “continue
conducting due diligence on the candidates pending consideration”
and that “upon completion, (it) [would] submit the information
for [respondent s) consideration.”

Petitioner Sakanote forthwith responded by requesting
respondent, on April 11, 2008, to “forward the remaining (BOR)
nominees so that the nominees [can] have enough time to provide

thoughtful and complete responses to the [Senate’

 

questionnaire
and the Senate Education Comittee [can] schedule the

confirmation proc

 

dings.” Respondent, after further nomination
requests from petitioner Sakamoto on April 15, 16, 18, and 21,

2008, submitted three more BOR nominations to the Senate on April
 

RTS ANI *

22, 2008: Dennis Hirota and Howard Karr for two of five Honolulu
County seats and Joshua Wingstrom for the student seat.

On April 25, 2008, the Senate confirmed OR nominees
Rasmussen, Tajiri, and Carlson. On April 30, 2008, respondent
withdrew Wingstrom’s BOR nomination. On May 1, 2008, the Senate
confirmed BOR nominees Baxa, Hirota, and Karr and rejected the
confirmation of BOR nominee Lagareta. That day, the Regular
Session of the 2008 Legislature adjourned.

on June 20, 2008, respondent notified BOR Chair Allan
Landon that: (1) five BOR members whose terms expired on June 30,
2007 -- Byron Bender, Catherine Lagareta, Jane Tatibouet, Marlene
Hapai, and Michael Dahilig -- agreed to hold over as 20R menbers*
until their successors were nominated by respondent from the list
of CAC candidates and the nominations confirmed by the senate;
and (2) a sixth BOR menber whose term expires on June 30, 2008 --

Ramon de la Pena

 

agreed to hold over as @ BOR member? until
his successor was nominated by respondent from the list of CAC
candidates and the nomination confirmed by the senate.
Respondent's holdover agreements with the six BOR
members came to the attention of Senator Les Thara, who, on July
3, 2008, requested from the Governor's Office “a copy of the
documents that appoint interim members of the UH board of regents

made from May 2, 2008 through the present.” The Governor’s

 

) gender, Lagareta, and Tatiboust agreed to hold over as members
for three Honolulu County seats. Hapai agreed to hold over as menber
for the second at large seat. Dahilig agreed to hold over as the
student member,

 

' de 1a Pena agreed to hold over as menber for the Kauai county
seat.
 

se IN WEST'S HAWAL

Office responded on July 8, 2008 as follows:

There are no records that fit your request.
The Governor has not made any interim
appointments to the Board of Regents from May 2
through the present. Regents Byron Sender,
Catherine Lagareta, Jane Tatibouet, Marlene
Hapal, Raron de la Pena and Michael Dahilig are
presently serving as holdover members of the
Board pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 304A-104,
hich provides that “(e]very member may serve
Beyond the expiration date of the menber's term
of appointment until the member's successor has
been appointed by the governor and confirmed by
the senate in accordance with article x, section
6 of the state constitution.”

on July 29, 2008, petitioner Sakamoto advised BOR Chair

 

andon that regents Bender, Lagareta, Tatibouet, Hapai, Dahilig,
and de la Pena were holding over “in possible violation of the

law” because: (1) the Hawai'i Constitution, article V, section 6,

 

prohibited the interim appointment of Lagareta after her
nomination was rejected; and (2) Act 56, Section 5 did not permit
fan extension of a regent’s term beyond June 30, 2008 for a regent
whose term had expired on June 30, 2007 and for whom no successor
had been appointed by June 30, 2008. Petitioner Sakamoto invited
respondent and the Attorney General to “clarify the matter.”

on July 30, 2008, the Attorney General advised
petitioner Sakamoto that none of the six regents at issue was an
“interim appointment” and that each vas lawfully serving as
regent pursuant to specific language of Act 56.

Act 56 [] very clearly governs the instant

situation with regard to the #ix Regents at issue

here. The terms of office of the six were to

expire either June 30, 2007 or June 30, 2001

None had a successor appointed and confirmed by

the Senate during the 2008 regular session.

Thus, pursuant to either their original

appointments (if they were for a term to expire
June 30, 2008) o Section 5 of Act 56, the terms

 

 
/ORTS AND PACIFIC RE!

of each of the six expired on June 30, 2008.
Pursuant to the specific language of Section ¢ of
Act 56, each of these six Regents “nay serve
beyond’ the expiration date of the menber’s term
of appointment until the member’s successor has
been appointed by the governor and confirmed by
the senate in accordance with article X, section
6 of the state constitution.” Each of the six
Regents is thus a “holdover” who specifically
serves pursuant to the terms of Act 56.

on July 30, 2008, petitioner Hanabusa advised the
Attorney General and the BOR chair that

certain menbers of the Hawaii State senate
contend that [respondent's] act of holdis
() regents (Bender, Lagareta, Tatibouet, Hapai,
Dahilig, and de la'Pena] is in direct
contravention of the Constitution of the State of
Hawaii and the provisions of Act 56 (S-8. 14) of
the 2007 Legislative Session. These holdover
regents have either been specifically rejected by
the Senate or have not availed themselves of the
selection process required under the
Constitution.

 

 

 

Petitioner Hanabusa further advised the Attorney General and the
BOR chair of “the intention of certain Senators to initiate legal
proceedings to question the legitimacy of [the six] regents’
current holdover status” and cautioned the BOR “to proceed with
due care while [the six regents’] appointments are under review.”
on October 6, 2008, petitioners initiated this original
proceeding by filing a petition for @ writ of mandamus.
Petitioners sought a writ directing respondent to nominate, “in a
timely manner,” six BOR candidates from the CAC’s list of
qualified candidates to replace the six holdover regents.
Petitioners contended that respondent is required to replace the
six holdover regents because: (1) the Hawai'i Constitution,
article X, section 6 mandates that regents “shall be nominated

and . . . appointed by the governor from pools of qualified
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

candidates presented to the governor by the (CAC)"s (2) Act 56,
Section 1 renewed the legislature's previously stated intent that
regents serving as of Nay 1, 2007 shall serve their full terns of
office and “as each term expires, the ragent will be replaced by
an appointed menber screened and proposed by the [CAC]? (3) Act
56, Section 5 provided that “the terns of those [regents] that
are to expire on or before June 30, 2007, shall be extended until
the earlier of June 30, 2008, or until such time as new (regents)
have been appointed [from CAC candidate pools]"; (4) the
legislature did not intend to implement a holdover provision when
it enacted Act 567 and (5) interpreting Act 56 to allow holdover
regents would “nullify the purpose of the CAC,” “negate the
purpose of the Constitutional Anendment [to article X, section
61," and “deny the advice and consent powers afforded to the
Senate by [article X, section 6).” Petitioners contended that
respondent was duty bound by article X, section 6 and Act 56 to
replace the six holdover regents by nominating six candidates
from the CAC's list of qualified candidates and that respondent
is arbitrarily refusing to perform this duty. They sought
mandamus relief “[iJn order to mitigate any further delay or
damage that may occur if the ‘holdover’ regents participate in
decisions by the (BOR) [.1”

Respondent answered the petition on November 6, 2008.
She argued that petitioners lacked standing to invoke this
court's remedial power of mandamus because they, as legislators,
had only a special interest in the subject matter of their

petition and they had not personally suffered a distinct and
* RTS AND PACIFI

palpable

 

jury. She argued that the petition for writ of

mandamus should be denied because: (1) mandamus relief against

 

her is warranted only for @ duty that is ministerial and so
plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt? (2) HRS § 304A-
104 (a) explicitly authorizes holdovers by regents and anticipates
that the holdover period could be lengthy; and (3) neither
article X, section 6 nor HRS § 304A-104(a) impose a mandatory
deadline upon her to appoint replacement regents within the four~
month period of time that had passed since the six holdover
regents’s terms expired on June 30, 2008.

Petitioners replied to respondent’s answer on Novenber

 

14, 2008. They argued that: (1) they personally suffered an
injury sufficient to establish standing inasmuch as their
constitutional obligation as senators to advise and consent on
respondent’s BOR appointments was usurped by respondent's holding
over of the six regents; (2) mandamus is appropriate to compel.
respondent's power of appointment; and (3) Act 56 provided a
specific time limit for respondent to act in the nominating
process.

Oral argument was held on December 4, 2008. That day,
we issued an order granting the petition for writ of mandamus and
directed respondent to replace the six holdover regents by
nominating, within thirty days, six regent candidates from the
candidate 1ist presented to respondent on February 21, 2008.

II, Standard for Disposition
Avwrit of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will

not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and

qo
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAL'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to
redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested
action. Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338
(1999) (citation omitted).

Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to
perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the
individual's claim is clear and certain, the official's duty is
ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt,
and no other remedy is available. In re, Disciplinary Bd. of
Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693
(1999). “A duty is ministerial where the law prescribes and
defines the duty to be performed with such precision and
certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and
judgment.” Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai'i 273, 274 n. 3, 874 P.2d
1088, 1099 n.3 (1994) (citation omitted).

TIT. Discussion
A, Petitioners Had Standing To Seek Mandamus Relief

“standing ig concerned with whether the parties have
the right to bring suit.” Mott] v, Mivahira, 95 Hawai‘ 361,
388, 23 P.3d 716, 723 (2001) (quoting Pele Defense Fund v, Puna
Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai'i 64, 67, 881 P.2d 1210, 1213
(2394).

It ig well settled that the crucial

inguiry with regard to standing is whether

the plaintiff has alleged such a personal

stake in the outcome of the controversy as to

warrant his or her invocation of the court’s

Yenedial powers on his or her behalf. In re

Application of Matson Navigation Co. v.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 81 Hawai'i 270,

275, 916 P.24 680, 685 (1996). In deciding
whether thé plaintiff has the requisite

nu
_t¢+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

interest in the outcome of the litigation, we
employ a three-part test: (1) has the
plaintiff suffered an actual or threatened
injury as a result of the defendant’s
wrongful conduct; (2) is the injury fairly
traceable to the defendant’s actions; and (3)
would a favorable decision likely provide
relief for plaintiff’s injury. Bush v.
Watson, 81 Hawai'i 474, 478, 918 F.2d 1130,
1135 (1996).

With réspect to the first prong of this
test, the plaintiff “must show a distinct and
palpable injury to himself (or herself. |”
Life of the Land v, Land Use Conmission of
State of Hawai'i, 63 Haw. 166, 173 n.6, 623
P.2d 431, 446 0.6 (1981). The injury must be
“distinct and palpable, as opposed to
abstract, conjectural, or merely
hypothetical.” Doyle’ v. Oklahoma Bar Ass‘n,
998 F.2d 1553, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993)
(citations omitted).

Motel, 95 Hawai'i at 389, 23 P.3d at 724, quoting Akinaka vy
Disciplinary Bd, of Hawai'i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i $1, 55, 979
P.2d4 1077, 1081 (1999). The requirement of a “distinct and
palpable injury” requires a plaintiff to have suffered an “injury
in fact.” Mottl, 95 Hawai'i at 391, 23 P.3d at 726,

Mott] involved a circuit court lawsuit for declaratory
and injunctive relief from the finance director's and the
governor's decision to reduce the University of Hawaii's
allotment of funds by six million dollars for fiscal year 1998,
‘The plaintiffs were: (1) three University of Hawaii faculty
members and directors of the University of Hawaii Professional
Assembly; (2) the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly; (3)
Hawai'i State Senator Rod Tam; and (4) Hawai'i State
Representative Chris Halford, The plaintiffs lost in circuit
court on summary judgment and lost in this court for lack of

standing in the circuit court. We held that none of the

a2
12+ BOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

plaintiffs suffered an “injury in fact” as a consequence of the
six million dollar reduction in funds. As to plaintiffs Tam and
Halford, we concluded that:

-(T)he plaintiffs assert that Tam and
ford, who are menbers of the legislature,
Shave not only the interest of a general
menber of the public in seeing that the
[fiscal and budget] laws of the state are
complied with, but the interest of persons
‘iho have Spent their own official tine on
behalf of their constituents, reviewing,
voting on, and enacting budgets that become
Yaw." This establishes Tan's and Halford’ s
“special interest” but not an “injury in
fact.” They have not alleged any “personal
stake in the outcone of the controversy,”
inasmuch as they have not alleged that they
had personally suffered any “distinct and
palpable injury.” Akinaka, 91 Hawai'i at 55,
579'P.2d at 198i. Because a “special
interest” in the subject matter of a lawsuit
is insufficient to invoke judicial
Intervention, Tam and Halford are without
standing in this action.

 

Motel, 95 Hawai'i at 392, 23 P.3d at 727.

Petitioners sought mandamus relief in their individual
capacities and in their capacities as state senators who passed
Ret $6 to modify the appointment process for regents and who
confirm or reject respondent's regent nominees under the modified
appointment process. Their standing to invoke our remedial power
of mandamus was contested by respondent, who relied on Mott) and
argued that petitioners's interest in preventing decision making
by a BOR comprised of six holdover regents established their
“special interest,” but did not establish an “injury in fact.”
Respondent argued that petitioners made no allegation that they
personally suffered any distinct and palpable injury as a

consequence of the holdover by six regents.

3
12+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATL REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Petitioners countered that they, as senators, “have a
constitutional duty [under article X, section 6] to review and
consent to, or reject [respondent's nominations of BOR candidates
qualified by the CAC]” and that they were “deprived of performing
their own constitutional obligations to advise and consent by
[zespondent''s] acts in purposefully circunventing the
constitutional nomination and appointment process [by holding
over six regents].” They relied on authority from foreign
jurisdictions holding that the “injury in fact” element of
standing is met when a legislator is deprived of the right to
advise and consent on executive appointments.

According to the legislators’
allegations, the interest sought to be
protected by this action [for declaratory and
injunctive relief against the governor] is
(the legislators’) unique statutory right to
advise the Governor on executive appointments
and to confer their approval or disapproval
in this regard. Assuming these allegations
to be true, we conclude that they allege a
personal and legally cognizable interest
peculiar to legislators. The interest
asserted is simply not a “generalized
interest of all citizens in constitutional
governance. Since the right to advise and
Consent has been vested only in menbers of
the legislature, and since only members of
the legislature are bringing this action, the
allegation that this right has been usurped
by the Governor and (the Acting Commissioner
of Commerce] are sufficiently personal to
constitute an injury in fact, thus satisfying
the minimum constitutional requirements of
standing, We therefore believe that it is
reasonable to hold that the legislators have
standing,

Dennis v. Luis, 741 F.2d 626, 631 (3 Cir, 1984) (internal

 

citations omitted) (suit by eight members of the Virgin Islands

Fifteenth Legislature challenging the governor's appointment of

4
se+ FORPU REPORTER ***

one Arnold Golden as “acting” Commissioner of Commerce after
Golden’s nomination for such position was rejected by the
legislature). Accord Riegle v, Federal Open Market Committee,
656 F.2d 873, 878 (D.C. Cir.}, cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981)
("We think it may argued plausibly that Senator Riegle has net
the [burden of establishing injury-in-fact for purposes of
standing]. . . . [A]ssuming that the five Reserve Bank members
of the [Federal Open Market Committee] are officers who must be
appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, Riegle’s
inability te exercise his right under the Appointments Clause of
the [federal] Constitution [because Reserve Bank members are
selected by a Board of Governors] is an injury sufficiently

personal to constitute an injury-in-fact.”

 

The Hawai'i Constitution, article X, section 6,
provides that BOR members “shall be nominated and, by and with
the advice and consent of the senate, appointed by the governor
from pools of qualified candidates presented to the governor by
the [CAC].” Petitioners, as senators who must advise and consent
on respondent’ s BOR nominees, alleged that their unique
constitutional duty to do so was usurped by respondent’ s holding
over of six regents. The decisions of the federal appellate
courts in Dennis and Riegle are persuasive authority for finding
that the allegation that petitioners’s right to advise and
consent on BOR appointments has been usurped by respondent and is
sufficiently personal to constitute an injury in fact.

‘Therefore, we hold that petitioners had standing to invoke our

remedial power of mandamus.

a5
 

the Terms Of The Six “Holdover” fi 5 on
30.2008 Pursuant To Act 56, Sections 1 And 3.

As previously stated, Act 56 of the 2007 legislature
implenented the 2006 amendment to the Hawai'i Constitution,
article X, section 6, that modified the appointment process for
University of Hawaii regents by requiring the governor to select
regent candidates from pools of qualified candidates presented to
the governor by the CAC. In implementing the modified
appointment process, the legislature, in Act 56, effective May 1,
2007, made specific provisions regarding the ten existing regents
and their terms, which, as previously stated, expired on June 30,
2007 as to five regents, June 30, 2008 as to two regents, and
2009 and 2011 as to three regents. Section 1 of Act $6 provided
that the ten existing regents will serve their full terms and
“[ajs each term expires, the regent will be replaced by an
appointed member screened and proposed by the [CAC).” Section 5
of Act 56 provided that the terms of the five regents whose terms
expired on June 30, 2007 “shall be extended until the earlier of
June 30, 2008, or until such time as new menbers of the board of
regents have been appointed pursuant to the appointment process
established pursuant to this Act, at which time their terms shall
expire."

Regent de la Pena was appointed to a term expiring on
June 30, 2008. Pursuant to Section 1 of Act 56, he served his
full term and his term expired on June 30, 2008. Regents Bender,
Dahilig, Hapai, Lagareta, and Tatibouet were appointed to terms
expiring on June 30, 2007. Pursuant to Section 5 of Act 56,

their terms were extended until June 30, 2008 or until they were

16
 

replaced by regents appointed ‘under the modified appointment
process, which ever occurred earlier. They were not, by June 30,
2008, replaced by regents appointed under the modified

appointment process and so their terms expired on June 30, 2008.

c. i
‘erms Expired Contravenes Act 56, Sect 1 And.

‘The

 

rms of regents Bender, Dahilig, de 1a Pena,
Hapai, Lagareta, and Tatibouet expired on June 30, 2008 pursuant
to Act 56, Sections 1 and 5, ‘Thus, pursuant to Act 56, Section
1, “{a]s each term expire[d], the regent will be replaced by an
appointed member screened and proposed by the [CAC].” ‘The CAC’s
List of screened and proposed regent candidates, presented to
respondent on February 21, 2008, included candidates to replace
the six regents whose terms expired on June 30, 2008. Respondent
acknowledged that the terms of six regents expired on June 30,
2008 pursuant to Act 56, Sections 1 and 5. Rather than
nominating replacement regents from the CAC's candidate list in
accordance with Section 1 of Act 56, respondent solicited and
obtained holdover agreements with these six regents on June 20,
2008. The holdovers, according to respondent, were authorized by
HRS § 304A-104(a) (Supp. 2007).

HRS § 304A-104(a) provides that “[e]very [BOR] member
may serve beyond the expiration date of the member's term of
appointment until the members successor has been appointed by
the governor and confirmed by the senate in accordance with
article X, section 6 of the state constitution.” Respondent
contended that this statutory provision (the holdover provision)

explicitly authorized the holdovers of the six regents whose

vv
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAFI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

terms expired on June 30, 2008. We disagree.
It is well settled that this court’s foremost
obligation in construing a statute

is to ascertain and give effect to the intention
of the legislature, which is to be obtained
primarily from the language contained in the
Statute itself. And we mist read statutory
language in the context of the entire statute and
construe it in a manner consistent with its

purpose:
Capua v, Weyerhaeuser Co., 117 Hawai'i 439, 447, 184 P.2d 191,

199 (2008) (citation omitted). Act 56, Section 5 provided that
*(nJotwithstanding the requirements of [HRS] section 304A-104, as
it read prior the effective date of this Act,” the tezms of the
five regents whose terms expired on June 30, 2007 would expire on
June 30, 2008. HRS $ 3044-104 -- as it read prior to the May 1,
2007 effective date of Act 56 -- contained the holdover provision
invoked by respondent for the continuation in office by the six
regents. We construe Act §6, Section $s “notwithstanding”
clause to except the holdover provision of HRS § 304A-104(a) as
to the five regents -- Bender, Dahilig, Hapai, Lagareta, and
Tatibouet -- to whom Section $ of Act 56 applies. such

construction effectuates the legislature’s intent

 

plainly
stated in Section 1 of Act 56 -~ that “[a]s each [existing

jent’s] term expires, the regent will be replaced by an

 

appointed member scr

 

ied and proposed by the [CAC].””
Respondent contended at oral argument that Section 5 of
Act 56 “speaks only to [the regents’s] terms,” and, therefore,

Section 5's “notwithstanding” clause does not refer to the

 

holdover provision, but refers instead to the provision of HRS §

1s
11+ BOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

304A-104, as it read prior to May 1, 2007, that regents serve
four-year terms. Section 5 speaks about regente’s terms as to
the extension and expiration of those terms. Though Section 5
can be construed as referencing the four-year term provision, it
can equally be construed as referencing the holdover provision.
Construing Section 5's “notwithstanding” clause ~~ which applies
to the “requirements” of HRS § 304A-104, as it read prior to May
1, 2007 -- as exclusively referencing the four-year term
provision is not rational and sensible.

Excepting the holdover provision of HRS $ 304A-104(a)
as to regent de la Pena also effectuates the legislature’s stated
intent that de la Pena, an existing regent when Act 56 was
effected, be replaced, when his term expired on June 30, 2008, by
an appointed regent screened and proposed by the CAC. We hold
that respondent's application of the holdover provision of URS §
3048-104 (a) to regent de la Pena and to regents Bender, Dahilig,
Hapai, Lagareta, and Tatibouet contravenes Act 56, Sections 1 and
5. Application of the holdover provision to those six regents is
contrary to the modified appointment process for regents
prescribed by the Hawai" Constitution, article x, section 6.?

>.
Nondiscre! Duty Of Respondent thai

After Passage Of An Unreasonable Period Of Tine.
The nomination and appointment of regents is a

 

* The participation of Bender, Dahilig, de 1a Pena, Hapai,
Lagareta, and Tatibouet, as regents, in business conducted by the
BOR raises the issue of the validity of the BOR’s decisions made since
July 1, 2008. The issue is collateral to this mandamus proceeding and
is an issue we decline to decide.

19
nondiscretionary duty impesed on respondent by the Hawai'i
constitution, article X, section 6 (regents “shall be nominated
and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appointed
by the governor from pools of qualified candidates presented to
the governor by the [CAC]”), HRS § 304K-104(a) (there shall be
fifteen regents “who shall be appointed . . . by the governor”),
and HRS § 304-104.5(e) (for each regent seat to be filled, “the
governor shall select one nominee from among the candidate
advisory council's presentations”).

Respondent did not dispute that the nomination and
appointment of regents is  nondiscretionary duty. she
contended, however, that the duty is not one that is so plainly
prescribed as to be free from doubt because article X, section 6
and HRS §§ 304A-104(a) and 304A~104,5(e) prescribe how, but not

when,

 

gent nominations and appointments are to be made. She
contended that article xX, section 6 does not mandate the
nomination and appointment of a regent as soon as a term expires

or as soon as a seat is vacant and HRS § 304A-104(e) sets no time

 

restriction on her selection of nominees from the CAC’

 

candidate
List. Respondent thus contended that there is no deadline
mandated by law for the nomination and appointment of replacement
regents for the eix regents whose terms expired on June 30, 2008
and that a writ mandating the “timely” nomination and appointment
of replacement regents was not warranted.
Petitioners countered that Act 56, Sections 1 and 5

imposed a deadline of June 30, 2008 for nominating and appointing

replacement regents for the six regents whose terms expired on

20
 

* WN IN.

June 30, 2008. They further countered that a writ of mandamus
was appropriate to compel the exercise of respondent's power to
appoint regents, notwithstanding the lack of a tine restriction
in article X, section 6 or HRS § 304A~104(a).

We agree with jurisprudence from other jurisdictions
that a governor's nondiscretionary duty can be compelled by
mandamus notwithstanding the absence of a stated time limit. See
Brotherton v. Moore, 230 8.8.20 638, 642 (W. Va. 1976) (The
governor’s duty to appoint an executive officer upon occurrence
of a vacancy in a non-elective office is a “nondiscretionary duty
to act” and a “duty which can be enforced by mandamus.”); accord
‘Trumka v. Moore, 376 S.£.2d 178 (W, Va. 1988); see also
Morganelli v. Casey, 646 A.2d 744, 747 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994) (The
governor's execution of death penalty warrants is a ministerial
duty and “the absence of a stated time limit, within which the
Governor must act, does not exempt the duty from being judicially
mandated if not performed.”). ‘The governor's duty to act is
enforceable by mandamus when the duty is “postponed unreasonably”
and not performed after the passage of an “unreasonable period of
time.” Brotherton, 230 $.£.2d at 642; Trumka, 376 S.8.2d at 181;
Moraanelli, 646 A.2d at 747

The Brotherton and Ixumka courts observed that “we
Would be insensitive to the realities of public administration
and abusive to the discretion of choice vested in a governor to
hold that the act of appointment may be compelled at the instant
of a vacancy.” Brotherton, 230 S.E.2d at 642; Trumka, 376 S.£.2d

‘at 161, The same view was expressed by this court in Life of the

a1
7 , rc! ae

 

Land v. Burns, $9 Haw. 244, 580 P.2d 405 (1978), concerning the
governor's duty under HRS § 26-34" to appoint successor members.
to boards and commissions upon the expiration of a menber’s term.

. + [Zhe governor would be entitled to at least
Aieascnable time after a term expires to
nominate a qualified person to a board or
commission. According to HRS § 26-34, it is
necessary for the governor to submit the name of
the person nominated to the senate for
confirmation. Therefore, the subject of
appointment Of menbers to boards and commissions
must necessarily be considered to be the joint
responsibility of the governor and senate, and
the senate is privileged to inguire the
governor's office about the appointment of any
member whose term hae expired bevond such
xeasonable tine. We believe that the senate
would be quick to expose the governor if he [or
She} engages in tactics which would unduly delay
the appointment of menbers of boards and

59 Haw. at 251, $80 P.2d at 410 (emphasis added) .

We hold that the governor’s duty —- pursuant to the
Hawai'i Constitution, article x, section 6, and HRS $$ 304A
104(a) and 304-104.5(e) -- to nominate and appoint members of
the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii is subject to a
reasonable time standard. Reasonable tine is judged by the
totality of the circumstances. C£. Fukida v. Hon/tlawais Service
and Repair, 97 Hawai'i 38, 45, 33 P.34 204, 211 (2001)
(reasonableness of the period of time claimed for loss of use of
property is determined by evaluating the totality of the
eizcumstances)

Respondent agreed at oral argument that her duty to

+ MRS § 26-34(a) (1993) (Selection and terms of members of beards
and connissions) ("The members of each board and comission
established by law shall be nominated and, by and with the advice and
consent of the senate, appointed by the governor.”).

22
22+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWALTREPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***_

nominate and appoint replacement regents for the six regents
whose terms expired on June 30, 2008 was subject to 2 reasonable
time standard. She contended, however, that as of Decenber 4,
2008, a reasonable period of time had not passed for the
nomination and appointment of the six replacement regents. We
disagree.

Respondent was presented with the CAC’s List of regent
candidates on February 21, 2008. The list consisted of twenty-
two candidates to fill twelve regent seats. All of the
candidates had been qualified and screened by the CAC in
accordance with criteria established by the CAC pursuant to HRS §
304A-104.5(a).? The CAC provided respondent with short
biographies of each candidate. The CAC explained to respondent,
in the candidate list, that the CAC, with the assistance of a
nationally recognized firm, had background checks performed on
each candidate and that based on the background checks, the CAC
“concluded that there were no findings to indicate that any of
the candidates would not be able to discharge the

responsibilities as a member of the Board of Regent:

 

Respondent's selection of regent nominees was

restricted to the twenty-two candidates presented to her on

 

February 21, 2008, Respondent had two-and-a-half months from her
receipt of the candidate list to the end of the 2008 regular

legislative session to select from the list one nominee for

 

of the twelve seats to be filled. By the end of the regular

 

3 HRS § 304A-104.5(a) (“The candidate advisory council shall
establish the criteria for qualifying, screening, and presenting to
the governor candidates for menbership on the board of regents.”)

23
12+ BOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***_

session, respondent had selected seven nominees, six of whom were
confirmed. Respondent thereafter had three opportunities to
submit selections for the six remaining regent nominees when the
first special legislative session convened in July 2008, when the
second special legislative session convened in July 2008, and
when the third special legislative session convened in Novenber
2008.

Respondent's selection of the six remaining regent
nominees is to be made from the same list of candidates that
respondent has had since February 21, 2008 and is to be made from
the twelve remaining candidates on the candidate list. The names
of those twelve candidates have been with respondent since
February 21, 2008.

under the totality of the circumstances, the passage,
to date, of nearly ten months since respondent was presented with
the regent candidate List is an unreasonable period of tine for
respondent to perform her constitutional and statutory duty of
nominating and appointing the six remaining regents.

Consequently, respondent is subject to mandamus.

Richard Y. Wada,
Jodi L. Eaton, and Gren
Jon Van Dyke,

for petitioners a
Mark J. Bennett,
Rttorney General, Besa Ctr areas

Charleen M. Aina’and
Russell A. Suzuki,
Deputy Attorneys General, P—~ “NG

for respondent
Boron, Duldye re

24