The Ombudsman Revisited: Thirty Years of Hawaiian Experience

During the 1960s, the attention of many American reformers was drawn to the Scandinavian ombudsman. Herbert Kaufman (1969, 6) summarized the arguments of the ombudsman's proponents: "Today, some observers contend that only a specialized, full-time official, wise in the ways of bureaucracy, having a vested interest in correcting its errors, and supported by adequate staff and authority, can perform this function effectively; apparently, it takes a bureaucrat to control a bureaucrat." But the ombudsman's critics doubted that the office had enough power to accomplish very much or that it was resilient enough to survive transplantation into the allegedly inhospitable American political-administrative climate. Five states have created "classical" ombudsmen, that is, offices similar to the Scandinavian originals: Hawaii (1969), Nebraska (1971), Iowa (1972), Alaska (1975), and Arizona (1996). (1) Such urban areas as Detroit, Michigan, King County, Washington, and Boise, Idaho, also have classical ombudsmen. In addition, many more ombudsman-like offices (which lack the powers of classical ombudsmen) have been created at all levels of government, in universities, in corporations, in nursing homes, and so forth. A number of these offices aspire to or pretend to be full-fledged ombudsmen. As increasing numbers of jurisdictions consider creating ombudsmen, assessing the long-term performance of the classical ombudsman in the American environment seems appropriate. So, too, does drawing comparisons between classical ombudsmen and ombudsman-like institutions. On July 1, 1969--a decade after Hawaii became a state--Herman S. Doi, who previously had served as the head of the Legislative Reference Bureau, was appointed Hawaii's ombudsman. He became the first ombudsman appointed for any American state, and he assumed responsibility for combining the ombudsman statute and appropriated funds and creating an effective institution. Doi served as Hawaii's ombudsman during the first 15 years of the office's life, and his ideas continue to mold its orientation and organizational structure. (2) Within the United States and internationally, Doi became recognized as a successful ombudsman, and newly appointed officials from around the world frequently traveled to Honolulu to learn how to be an ombudsman. (3) His comprehensive annual reports, distributed worldwide to ombudsmen and to academic libraries, became textbooks for training ombudsmen outside of Hawaii. The Ombudsman's Bureaucratic Structure Hawaii's office was modeled on the earlier ombudsmen. After visiting the Scandinavian, British, and New Zealand offices, Doi considered how his office's operations needed to be adapted to the American environment, specifically to Hawaii's political culture. Other U.S. ombudsmen with similar powers have, in general, adopted the hybrid ombudsman system that Doi developed. He thought it vital that an institution devised to monitor government bureaucracies should itself be efficient and accountable, and he concluded the office would have to adopt a bureaucratic mode of operation to meet those objectives. Organizing the Office's Work The main difference between the Hawaiian hybrid and the traditional ombudsman lies in the informality of the Hawaii office's procedures. Most notably, Hawaiian citizens typically use the telephone for lodging complaints, and the ombudsman also uses it heavily for investigating them. To ensure efficiency and accountability, the staff keeps records of all telephone conversations. Bureaucratic case files--kept in file cabinets--are the office's units of work. (4) Receiving and Investigating Complaints by Telephone. When the ombudsman was considered in New Zealand and in Great Britain, the possibility of citizens making frivolous or malicious complaints that could waste officials' time or falsely accuse them prompted legal requirements that complaints be put in writing and be signed. …