The City Council is scheduled to re-examine whether the City and County of Honolulu, or, in reality, the taxpayers of the City and County of Honolulu, will pay for an attorney to represent city Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro in the two matters he currently faces in state court. The decision-making process should be open to the public so that we can fully understand why and how our monies are being spent. This decision, however, is more complicated than it may appear at first glance, requiring a thorough understanding of the applicable governing laws to two very different legal scenarios.

First, Kaneshiro is facing an impeachment petition that involves what appears to be a purely political question — whether the citizens who elected him can now, through the political process of impeachment, remove him from office.

Second, the state attorney general has petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to temporarily suspend Kaneshiro from practicing law as the chief criminal prosecutor in Hawaii, citing his personal conflict of interest in carrying out his duties. This conflict of interest exists because he is the target of a federal grand jury investigating possible criminal misconduct by Kaneshiro.

Kaneshiro has refused to acknowledge whether he has received a target letter from the grand jury; however, his attorney recently admitted that Kaneshiro has, indeed, received such a letter. The petition by the attorney general raises the question of whether Kaneshiro’s personal conduct as a practicing attorney in Hawaii requires that he be temporarily removed from office pursuant to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct. It is clear that these two petitions — the impeachment petition and the attorney general’s petition — raise very different legal challenges so must be treated and analyzed independently from one another.

This analysis may result in very different conclusions — in this case, one size does not fit all. It may be that Kaneshiro is entitled to have the taxpayers pay for an attorney for both matters, or one, or neither. Moreover, even if Kaneshiro is legally entitled to have a taxpayer-paid attorney appointed to represent him, does he have the right to pick the attorney of his choice or does the City Council retain that authority?

Who decides the hourly rate of pay for that attorney? While the allocation of $75,000 for an attorney, as previously authorized, is a lot of money, an attorney who has high hourly rates might go through those funds in a month, while these monies might last much longer with a less costly but equally capable attorney.

I remain optimistic that the City Council will follow sunshine laws and make its decision in a transparent manner after a full examination of the issues before it. However, given past history and our current political climate, it may be left up to the public and members of the press to ensure that our elected officials are responsive to the electorate and accountable for their actions.

Most importantly, I hope that whatever decision is made, it is done in a manner that lets us all understand the hows and whys. We can then agree or disagree without any further cloud of suspicion.

Alexander Silvert is the attorney for Gerard Puana, who had been falsely accused of the mailbox theft of niece Katherine Kealoha; she is now under multiple indictments and was Keith Kaneshiro’s deputy.