Inside the West Hawaii Civic Center Council Chambers, 35 Kealakehe High School students worked in teams, plotting strategies for a courtroom showdown. Their role as attorneys was phony at the second annual Civic Engagement &Policy Forum, but the Hawaii State Supreme Court case they tackled — Molfino v. Yuen — was real.
Friday morning, the students learned Geoffrey Molfino purchased a 49-acre Big Island property on June 13, 2003, with the intention of subdividing, developing and reselling it. Later that year, he sought determination of lots of record by a letter to Christopher J. Yuen, the county planning director at the time. In February 2004, after not receiving a reply, Molfino sold the parcel.
Four months later, Yuen responded by letter, stating the parcel consisted of two pre-existing lots. Molfino also became aware of another letter, prepared in 2000 by the planning director, stating the parcel consisted of six separate lots of record. Molfino alleges that letter was missing from the department’s files during the period he owned the parcel.
The department later determined the parcel consisted of six lots of record and granted the new owner approval for a seven-lot subdivision. Molfino sued the county and Yuen in his official capacity for negligence, alleging they breached a duty owed to him to maintain complete and accurate planning department records.
The issue, currently under review, involves whether the county “had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and preservation of the records in this case, that is, the pre-existing lot determination.” The public will have an opportunity to watch the actual oral arguments about this case at 10 a.m. April 29 in the Kealakehe High School gym.
There were gasps, passionate rebuttals, and whispers as student “lawyers” huddled urgently on their respective sides and scrambled to argue or defend positions before the event’s judges, which included Kona attorney Edward Schulman and Kealakehe’s Career and Technical Education coordinator Justin Brown.
In their proceedings, the teams adjusted to the strategies employed by the opposing side. To justify or interpret their points, they cited the state’s Uniform Information Practices Act and the Planning Department’s Rules of Practice and Producers. They mentioned recent trials and posed hypothetical situations.
The students also tried to define what’s considered “timely,” “accurate” and “complete.” A few argued it’s not unreasonable for the court to require the county to have and maintain a digital library of all public records, especially when considering today’s technological advancements and their ease. Some repeatedly stressed the county’s duty is to disclose public records, not maintain any specific one, and its job is to “act on the public’s benefit,” not private interests or gains such as a potential profit from a real estate venture. Others claimed if a county decides to keep records, it must keep all of them; thus, the county was in breach because the document in question was missing and didn’t exist during Molfino’s search of records.
Schulman admired the participants’ desire to be engaged and their sincere belief that they can make a difference. He liked how the forum gave these students “an opportunity to acquire knowledge and put that knowledge to good use.” He said it’s good for anyone — including adults — to have an understanding of our legal system, which binds us together, and the “constitutional democracy we live in.”
This simulation enthralled 16-year-old Sara Johnson who wants to become a lawyer. She found the exercise challenging and rewarding. She said it forced participants to think on their feet as they responded to arguments, objections and unanticipated twists during the cross-examination and rebuttal portions. Being articulate and prepared advocates for their clients, as well as having a firm understanding of the other side and knowledge of the law in regards to the case, were also key, she added.
Participants experienced the challenges of the courtroom firsthand to have a better understanding of the legal system. They gained confidence, particularly when it comes to public speaking or debate, said Anna Thomas, an 18-year-old Kealakehe senior who organized this two-day Civic Engagement &Policy Forum as part of her senior project.
Thomas plans to study international relations at either University of California, Los Angeles or University of Washington. She decided to carry on the legacy started last year by seven Kealakehe students who successfully created the event for their senior projects.
Thomas wanted this year’s state, national and international simulations to be more realistic so she decided to focus on topics currently being discussed. Her hope was to “spur civic engagement” and possibly “innovation of creative solutions to the issues.” Besides the Molfino v. Yuen case, the students also debated the right of military intervention to stop nuclear weapon development and the international community’s responsibility to protect human rights. Fellow Model UN club members and Kealakehe seniors TC Guccione and Jerid Liddiard served as simulation directors.
Thomas spoke about the importance of teens and young adults staying informed about issues so they can vote, act and engage in meaningful ways. Besides highlighting civic engagement, Thomas said this event helps participants develop and build upon leadership skills such as logical thinking, critical analysis, responsible risk taking, confidence and collaboration. A goal, she added, is to put students on “the path of becoming a effective and influential leader.”
The best part for Thomas was seeing students overcome their shyness and deliver great speeches.