Office of the Ombudsman
State of Hawaii
|
Office of the Ombudsman
|
|
|
REPORT of the OMBUDSMAN
For
the Period July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002
Presented
to the Legislature December 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
United States Ombudsman Association
Description of Terms Used in 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 of Inquirers
5. Means of Receipt
of Inquiries by Residence
6. Distribution and Disposition of Jurisdictional Complaints by Agency
7. Distribution and Disposition of Substantiated Jurisdictional Complaints
by Agency
8. Distribution of Information Requests
9. Distribution of Non-Jurisdictional Complaints LETTER
OF TRANSMITTAL Mr. President,
Mr. Speaker, and Members of the
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 2001-2002.
This is the thirty-third annual report since the establishment of the
office in 1969.
The Office of the Ombudsman is committed to its role as a link between
the people and their government. We
hope that our efforts to promote the fair and impartial administration of
government through the independent and impartial investigation of citizen
complaints help to restore the public’s trust and confidence in government.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Governor, the Mayors
of the various counties, and the State and County department heads and employees
for their ongoing cooperation and assistance in our efforts to resolve citizen
complaints and concerns.
I would also like to personally thank First Assistant Donna Woo and the
other professional and support staff members of the Office of the Ombudsman for
their continued commitment and dedication to the office and its mission. Respectfully
submitted, ROBIN
K. MATSUNAGA December
2002
Chapter I THE YEAR IN BRIEF
The
Office Workload
During fiscal year 2001-2002, the office received a total of 5,638
inquiries. 4,024 of these
inquiries, or approximately 71 percent, may be classified as complaints within
the jurisdiction of the office. The
remaining inquiries consisted of 1,121 requests for information and 493
non‑jurisdictional complaints.
The 5,638 inquiries received during fiscal year 2001-2002 represent
A comparison of inquiries received in fiscal year 2000-2001 and fiscal
year 2001-2002 is presented in the accompanying table. TWO-YEAR CASELOAD COMPARISON
Staff
Changes
In May 2002, Yvonne Faria joined the office as an analyst. Ms. Faria graduated cum laude and was valedictorian of
her graduating class at Hawaii Pacific University.
She was last employed as a legislative assistant with the Hawaii Insurers
Council and brings with her over 10 years of experience in the legislative
field. The addition of Ms. Faria
completes our staff allotment and should help reduce each analyst’s caseload
to a more manageable level, enabling the office to respond to inquiries and
complaints in a more timely and thorough manner.
At the close of the fiscal year, the office consisted of Ombudsman Robin
Matsunaga, First Assistant Donna Woo, analysts Herbert Almeida, Mark Au, Gillman
Chu, Yvonne Faria, Alfred Itamura, Glenn Mirikidani, Lynn Oshiro and David
Tomatani, and office staff Sheila Alderman, Edna de la Cruz, Debbie
Goya, Sue Oshima and Linda Teruya.
In March 2002, Alfred Itamura celebrated 20 years of service in the
office. Mr. Itamura began his
career as an associate analyst under Herman Doi, Hawaii’s first Ombudsman,
shortly after obtaining his Master of Arts in Political Science from the
University of Hawaii at Manoa in 1981. He
is now one of the senior members of our staff and a source of valuable
institutional knowledge for the office. We
thank Mr. Itamura for his many years of commitment and dedicated service to
this office. Outreach
Efforts
In continuation of our efforts to educate the public on the function of
the office, we presented our educational exhibit booth at three events during
the 2001-2002 fiscal year. The
overwhelming response to our booth at the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP) Senior Fair in September encouraged us to take part in the 2001
Food and New Products Show in October and the Spring New Products Show in April
2002. With the large number of
people expected to attend the shows, we felt these events would logically
provide us the greatest exposure. The
staff voluntarily manned our booth and did an outstanding job of providing the
public with information on the office.
In fiscal year 2001-2002, we received invitations from two community
groups to speak to their members on the purpose and function of the
Ombudsman’s Office. In August
2001, the Ombudsman participated in a lively discussion with members of the
Waianae Coast AARP at their monthly meeting.
In November 2001, the Ombudsman visited the beautiful Hawaii Kai
Retirement Community and acquainted the residents with the office and the
services we provide.
On June 28, 2002, Ombudsman Robin Matsunaga and First Assistant Donna Woo
participated in a conference on “Government Watchdogs in Hawaii: Making
Government Accountable,” initiated and hosted by Hawaii County Mayor Harry
Kim. The conference was the first
such meeting of state and county offices to “talk story” and share ideas,
and provided an opportunity for exchange among the 50 participants on who each
of us is, what each of us does, common concerns that we share, and how we can
work together to better serve the public. Among
the participants were Moya
Davenport Gray, Director of the Office of Information Practices; Constance
Kiriu, Legislative Auditor of the County of Hawaii; Dan Mollway, Executive
Director of the State Ethics Commission; Gerald Sekiya, Chair of the Commission
on Judicial Conduct; Charles Totto, Executive Director of the City and County of
Honolulu Ethics Commission; and Bob Watada, Executive Director of the State
Campaign Spending Commission. United
States Ombudsman Association
During the past year, the office continued its active role in the United
States Ombudsman Association (USOA).
The USOA is the nation’s oldest and largest organization of ombudsmen
working in government to address citizen complaints.
USOA’s membership includes practicing ombudsmen at all levels of
government, some of whom have general jurisdiction, and others who have
jurisdiction over a specified subject matter or agency. Ombudsman
Robin Matsunaga is completing his second two-year term on the USOA Board of
Directors and his second year as president of the organization.
Under his presidency, Mr. Matsunaga has provided the Board and membership
with a long-term vision for the USOA and his thoughts of where the USOA should
direct its resources. Mr. Matsunaga
is working with the Board to develop a sound long-term strategic plan for the
USOA and exploring ways to generate the resources necessary to implement that
plan. The
office submitted a proposal to the USOA and was selected to host the USOA’s
annual conference in 2003.
Chapter II STATISTICAL TABLES Description of Terms Used in Statistical Tables Inquiries Our office receives two basic types of inquiries--information requests and complaints. Information
requests are queries for
which we provide a response or referral, such as to another government agency or
a private entity. There are two types of complaints--jurisdictional
and non-jurisdictional. A
jurisdictional complaint is one that our office is authorized to
investigate. Conversely, a non-jurisdictional
complaint is one that our office does not have authority to investigate.
In non-jurisdictional complaints, we refer complainants to agencies that
we believe may be able to help them. Disposition
of Jurisdictional Complaints Jurisdictional complaints are disposed of in different ways, depending on the nature and circumstances of the complaint, and/or the result of our investigation. A
declined complaint is one in which a complainant is referred to an
alternative process. For example,
if the complaint is about the conduct of a police officer, we advise the
complainant to file a complaint with the police commission; if an inmate has a
complaint that is not urgent, we advise the inmate to utilize the grievance
procedure. The complainant is invited to call us back if the complaint
is not resolved through the alternative process. A
declined complaint also occurs when it is determined that the complaint is not
timely or is trivial, frivolous or vexatious, or when the complainant has no
personal interest or does not permit us to reveal his or her identity when the
situation requires. Other reasons
we decline to investigate a complaint are when we lack sufficient resources or
expertise or the complaint lacks merit on initial consideration. An
assisted complaint is one in which we contact an agency on behalf of a
complainant and inform the agency of the nature of the complaint and request the
agency to aid the complainant directly. There
is no investigation by our office. A discontinued complaint is one in which after the filing of a complaint, the complainant decides voluntarily to withdraw the complaint or fails to submit additional information that is required to properly investigate the complaint, or no further action is required because the complaint is resolved. A completed investigation is one in which we conduct a full investigation and arrive at a finding that a complaint is either substantiated or not substantiated. A
substantiated complaint is one that we found fully or partially in favor
of the complainant. When a
complaint is substantiated, it is either rectified or not rectified.
A complaint is rectified when the agency complies with our
recommendation that the desired remedy be provided the complainant and/or action
is taken to prevent similar problems from arising in the future. A complaint is not rectified when the agency does not
adopt our recommendation or when we are unable to make a recommendation because
no resolution is possible. A
complaint is not substantiated when we find that the agency’s actions
are in accordance with the law and/or are appropriate and reasonable or when the
complainant’s allegations could not be proven.
TABLE 1 NUMBERS AND TYPES OF INQUIRIES Fiscal Year 2001-2002
TABLE 2 MEANS BY WHICH INQUIRIES ARE RECEIVED Fiscal Year 2001-2002
TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION
OF POPULATION AND Fiscal Year 2001-2002
*Source:
The State of Hawaii Data Book 2001, A Statistical TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION
OF TYPES OF INQUIRIES Fiscal Year 2001-2002
TABLE 5
MEANS OF RECEIPT AND TYPES OF INQUIRIES Fiscal Year 2001-2002
TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION
AND DISPOSITION OF Fiscal Year 2001-2002
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||