REPORT of the OMBUDSMAN

For the Period July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000
Report No. 31

Presented to the Legislature
pursuant to Section 96-16 of
the Hawaii Revised Statutes

 December 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

I.  THE YEAR IN BRIEF

            The Office Workload

            Staff Changes

            Case Management

            New Case Management System

            United States Ombudsman Association

II.  LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION

III.  STATISTICAL TABLES

           1.  Numbers and Types of Inquiries

           2.  Means by Which Inquiries Are Received

           3.  Distribution of Population and Inquirers by Residence

           4.  Distribution of Types of Inquiries by Residence

           5.  City and County of Honolulu - Means of Receipt and Types of Inquiries by Month

           6.  Neighbor Island Counties and Out-of-State - Means of Receipt and Types of Inquiries

           7.  Distribution and Disposition of Jurisdictional Complaints by Agency

           8.  Distribution and Disposition of Substantiated Jurisdictional Complaints by Agency

           9.  Distribution of Information Requests

         10.  Distribution of Non-Jurisdictional Complaints

         11.  Inquiries Carried Over to Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and Their Dispositions, and Inquiries Carried Over to Fiscal Year 2000-2001

IV.  SELECTED CASE SUMMARIES

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the
        Hawaii State Legislature of 2001:

            In accordance with Section 96-16, Hawaii Revised Statutes, I am pleased to submit the report of the Office of the Ombudsman for fiscal year 1999-2000.  This is the thirty-first annual report since the establishment of the office in 1969. 

            Those who sought assistance from our office during the year would not have been as ably served in a timely, objective, efficient, and professional manner without the dedicated services of Ms. Donna Woo, my First Assistant, and the other professional and support staff members of the office.  For their continued commitment and hard work, I convey my personal thanks.

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                            ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
                                                            Ombudsman

December 2000

return to Table of Contents

Chapter I

THE YEAR IN BRIEF

The Office Workload 

            During fiscal year 1999-2000, the office received a total of 5,796 inquiries.  Of these inquiries, 4,187, approximately 72 percent, may be classified as complaints within the jurisdiction of the office.  The remaining inquiries consisted of 1,054 requests for information and 555 non-jurisdictional complaints.

            The 5,796 inquiries received during fiscal year 1999-2000 represents a significant decrease from the 6,991 inquiries received the previous fiscal year.  The number of complaints in fiscal year 1999-2000 also decreased by a similar percentage from the number received in previous fiscal years.

            It should be noted, however, that the decrease in total inquiries and complaints received helped alleviate the negative impact on operations which could have resulted due to the installation of the new case management system and a reduction in staffing level during the fiscal year.

            A comparison of our workload between the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 fiscal years is presented in the accompanying table.

TWO-YEAR CASELOAD COMPARISON

return to Table of Contents

Staff Changes 

            In October 1999, Yvette Lum, who had been with our office since March 1993, left to take a position with the Developmental Disabilities Division of the Department of Health.  In May 2000, after three years with our office as an analyst, Benedyne Stone left our office to join the Public Utilities Commission as a staff attorney.  We wish both of them the best in their new careers.  These two positions remained unfilled during the remainder of the 1999-2000 fiscal period.

            At the close of the fiscal year, our office consisted of Ombudsman Robin Matsunaga, First Assistant Donna Woo, analysts Herbert Almeida, Gillman Chu, Alfred Itamura, Glenn Mirikidani, Lynn Oshiro, and David Tomatani, and office staff Edna de la Cruz, Debbie Goya, Sue Oshima, and Linda Teruya.

            Two of our staff members celebrated their 30^th anniversary as public employees this past fiscal year.  Gillman Chu has been with the Office of the Ombudsman since September 1975 and Edna de la Cruz since May 1970.  Both Mr. Chu and Ms. de la Cruz started their tenure with this office under Herman Doi, Hawaii’s first Ombudsman.  We thank them for their many years of commitment and dedicated service to this office.

return to Table of Contents

Case Management 

            The decreased number of complaints received by our office during fiscal year 1999-2000 allowed us time to work on reducing the backlog of cases.  As a result, the number of cases carried over is at its lowest in the past ten years.  The history of the past ten years of the number of cases carried over from one fiscal year to the next is as follows:

            Of the 170 carried-over cases, 16 are cases carried over from years prior to fiscal year 1999-2000.  Although these cases may be opened for longer than one year, they are under active investigation.  The remaining cases are for fiscal year 1999-2000 that were still opened as of June 30, 2000.  We believe we are close to achieving our goal of reducing our backlog of cases to an acceptable level.  We will continue to work hard to complete our investigations in a timely, thorough, and expeditious manner.

return to Table of Contents

New Case Management System 

            In October, we replaced our existing case tracking system (CTS) with a new case management system (CMS) that we acquired from the Iowa Ombudsman’s Office.  In switching to the CMS, we were able to convert the existing data on complainants and complaint cases from our CTS, creating a database of approximately 13,000 contacts and 25,000 cases.  By the close of the fiscal year, we had almost 16,000 contacts and 29,000 cases in our CMS database.

            While we continue to learn and work with this new system, identifying modifications needed to customize it to fit our requirements, the CMS has already had a positive impact on our operations.  With its extensive database, which continues to grow, and quick search capability, the CMS has improved the efficiency by which we intake and process new complaints that are made via telephone.  Upon receiving a telephone call where the caller provides a first and last name, the intake staff enters the caller’s last name into the CMS, which quickly generates a listing of any contacts with that last name.  By scrolling down the alphabetized list, the intake staff can find whether the caller had contacted our office previously.

            The CMS also generates at the same time a list of the previous complaints or inquiries that each contact has made with our office, the case number assigned to the complaint or inquiry, and the analyst assigned to the case.  This information greatly assists the intake staff in routing the caller to the appropriate analyst for assistance.

            Another key feature of the CMS that has helped to improve our efficiency is the inclusion of the notes to each case as a part of the data for that case.  Under the CTS, the notes on a case were stored only in paper files as the program did not allow the notes to be electronically attached to the case in the database.  With the new CMS, the notes are electronically attached to the case, which allows simultaneous access to the case notes by more than one person at a time.  Also, as part of the database, the case notes are fully searchable.  This allows us to perform simple or complex text searches to find previous cases that we have had that dealt with the same or very similar circumstances.

            The new CMS also greatly assists the Ombudsman and First Assistant in the management of caseloads.  In addition to providing counts of open cases for each analyst, the CMS also provides statistics such as the number of days a particular case is open, as well as other information that the Ombudsman can use to improve his ability to oversee his staff.

            In addition to its positive impact on our services to the public, the new CMS also allows us to capture more detailed data on our cases, which allows us to more accurately record what we do.  For example, where the CTS provided only two types of dispositions for jurisdictional complaint cases (discontinued or closed), the CMS provides four choices (declined, assisted, discontinued, or completed).  It also provides us with additional data fields that record not only whether a complaint is substantiated, but also the basis for that finding, whether a recommendation for action was made to the agency, and whether and to what degree the agency responded to the recommendation.  We hope to incorporate this new information into our next annual report, as we believe it will help to provide a better and clearer understanding of the work that we do.

return to Table of Contents

United States Ombudsman Association 

            As one of its founding members, our office continues its active participation in the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA).  Ombudsman Robin Matsunaga continues to serve on the USOA Board, and chairs its Outreach Committee.  He also chairs the special committee to review the bylaws of the Association and was instrumental in proposing and drafting amendments to the bylaws, which are now before the membership for ratification.

            As chair of the Outreach Committee, Mr. Matsunaga was invited to speak at the 1999 National Conference of State Legislatures Leadership Staff Section Annual Training Seminar in New Orleans, Louisiana, on the establishment and function of the Ombudsman.  He was also a speaker at the USOA/COA (Canadian Ombudsman Association) Conference in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, in October 1999, and at the Second Ombudsman Leadership Forum Conference in San Francisco, California, in June 2000.

return to Table of Contents

 Chapter II

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION

            In the investigation of a complaint, we sometimes discover problems or inequities that may require statutory change to resolve, as in the following case (Case No. 00-1255):

            A State employee complained that the amounts garnished from his paychecks for an unpaid loan consistently exceeded the amount calculated by statutory formula.  He explained that the garnishment amount from his most recent paycheck was $238, but he thought it should have been $135.  He believed that the error was due to the fact that the garnishment amounts were based on a percentage of his gross pay when the statute required that the amounts be based on a percentage of his net pay.

            In our investigation, we found that there are two separate laws on garnishment:  Chapter 652, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), “Garnishment,” and Chapter 653, HRS, “Garnishment of Government Beneficiaries.”  The latter chapter defines “government beneficiaries” as officers or employees of the State and counties who receive a salary, stipend, or wages.  Since the complainant was a State employee, Chapter 653 was applicable to him.

            Both chapters provide identical garnishment rates:  5 percent of the first $100 per month, 10 percent of the next $100 per month, and 20 percent of all sums in excess of $200 a month.  However, while Chapter 652 provided that the garnishment rates would be applied to an employee’s pay “remaining after the deduction of any amounts required by law to be withheld,” Chapter 653 contained no such provision and only provided that the rates would be applied to a government employee’s salary, stipend, or wages.  Thus, while the garnishment amount from a private sector employee’s paycheck would be based on the amount remaining after deductions required by law, the garnishment amount from a government employee’s paycheck would be based on gross pay.  According to our calculations, $238 was the correct amount to be garnished from the complainant’s last paycheck based on his gross pay.

            We contacted the Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS), which processes State employees’ paychecks.  The DAGS confirmed that it must comply with Chapter 653, not Chapter 652, in determining garnishment amounts to be withheld from employees’ paychecks.  Thus, the DAGS applied the statutory garnishment rates against the amount of the gross pay of employees, prior to any deductions and withholdings.

            The DAGS supervisor with whom we spoke was not aware of the reason for treating government employees differently from non-government employees in this matter.  Additionally, in our review of the legislative history of the statutes, we found no stated rationale for the differential treatment.

Recommendation

            In the interest of fairness and equity for employees of the State and all four counties, unless there is an overriding reason for the differential treatment, the allowable garnishment amounts should be the same for both government and private sector employees.  The Legislature should consider amending the garnishment statutes to reflect a consistent application of allowable garnishment amounts for both public and private sector employees.

return to Table of Contents

Chapter III

STATISTICAL TABLES

TABLE  1

NUMBERS AND TYPES OF INQUIRIES

Fiscal Year 1999-2000

return to Table of Contents

TABLE 2

MEANS BY WHICH INQUIRIES ARE RECEIVED

Fiscal Year 1999-2000

return to Table of Contents

TABLE 3

DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND
INQUIRERS BY RESIDENCE

Fiscal Year 1999-2000

*Source:  The State of Hawaii Data Book 1999, A Statistical
 Abstract.  Hawaii State Department of Business,
 Economic Development and Tourism, Table 1.06,
 “Resident Population, by Counties:  1980 to 1999.”

 return to Table of Contents

TABLE 4

DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF INQUIRIES
BY RESIDENCE

Fiscal Year 1999-2000

return to Table of Contents

TABLE 5

 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU –
MEANS OF RECEIPT AND TYPES OF INQUIRIES BY MONTH

Fiscal Year 1999-2000