Government workers, even during this recessionary period, traditionally enjoy job security relatively uncommon in the private sector: Layoffs are infrequent, terminations less frequent still.
Given the general verity of that, it makes last week’s developments regarding a terminated Hawaii County elections official not necessarily compelling — but still somewhat disconcerting.
Hawaii County Elections Office Administrator Pat Nakamoto, along with three other workers, was terminated amid allegations of misuse of the county elections office building that included alcohol consumption on site, as well as the existence of private sign-making equipment in the county-owned building. A private investigator hired by County Clerk Jamae Kawauchi reportedly uncovered the findings that led to the January terminations.
Nakamoto was reinstated last week. Details surrounding the reinstatement decision and fallout ensuing from her termination have yet to rise into the context of public record or comment.
This is not to judge the merits or consequences of Nakamoto’s actions or those of individuals that brought about the terminations — or reinstatement. Those elements will play out formally in the coming weeks or months.
As reported last week, “Ms. Nakamoto has reluctantly accepted some disciplinary action and has been reinstated to her position,” said Randy Perriera, executive director of the Hawaii Government Employees Association. “Ms. Nakamoto very clearly believes she has not done anything wrong and has unfairly been characterized as a political pawn.”
The choice of his wording “political pawn” was perhaps unknowingly germane.
This is the county’s Office of Elections administrator about whom we speak. With that title comes some resolute responsibilities, responsibilities that cannot be subject to political machinations or pressure. The public entrusts the office to ensure accurate, fair and responsible elections processes are carried out, a system ensured and enshrined by our federal government.
Politics should not play into the elections office operations and oversight. That is an inarguable premise.
What is disconcerting, however, is the public activity of Nakamoto in the interim period, after her termination and prior to reinstatement.
She has been publicly visible in political activities supporting former County Clerk Kenny Goodenow, who is seeking a Hilo district County Council seat, running against incumbent J Yoshimoto. As we reported, Goodenow’s campaign website had displayed several photos of Nakamoto and her boyfriend, former state Chief Elections Officer Dwayne Yoshina, attending an April 14 volunteer meeting for Goodenow’s campaign. Both were wearing name badges, seated at a table covered with campaign materials.
Federal laws exercise oversight of the elections process and they ensure we have individual rights, as well, including First Amendment rights — rights to vote for whom we choose and the liberty to express ourselves toward that end. Nakamoto is not exempt from those protections.
Nakamoto’s actions, while not illegal, potentially may throw into question the ability of the elections office to ensure fairness. Her federally protected ability to choose a candidate whom she will support is not in question. A public display of that partiality is, however.
It is not far afield from a judge publicly expressing his belief in a defendant’s guilt or innocence before a trial is completed. Obviously, a judge will formulate an opinion as evidence is heard and may hold a belief, even after a jury returns a contrary verdict, of that guilt or innocence.
That opinion, however, is not publicized.
Reporters and editors select candidates for whom they will cast a ballot. Yet bumper stickers and yard signs for them are taboo for the same reason Nakamoto should have kept her political preferences private: To do otherwise is to broadcast partiality and erode the public trust that professional and private interests can and are kept clearly separate — that private truly is private and professional standards and ethics should be paramount.
This is an issue of public trust and perception that must be regarded.
Nakamoto, in exercising her protected rights, knowing she was seeking reinstatement to her job as Hawaii County Elections Office administrator, sacrificed that public trust and created the perception she is indeed a political piece — taking on the chessboard a position of her own choosing.
