The Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Board of Trustees has a code of conduct policy that requires trustees to publicly support a board decision even though he or she might disagree with it personally.

It’s a policy that appears to have gotten one trustee in trouble with his OHA colleagues.

The board has proposed to formally investigate charges alleging public statements disloyal to OHA and unsupportive of the board’s decisions.

After discussing the proposal in a closed-door executive session last week, the board deferred a decision to carry out an investigation by a committee composed of three of its members.

Will it be brought up to the board again?

Hard to say because the whole thing is shrouded in mystery. Neither the name of the offending board member nor details of the specific violations alleged are being disclosed by the trustees in public. (It’s against the code of conduct.) Meeting documents don’t offer much information, either.

Former OHA trustee Rowena Akana described the board’s action as “rubbish” and said the rules have never been enforced against anybody.

Akana, the 28-year trustee who lost reelection in November, said the rules are loosely written and used as a tool to allow trustees in power the ability to punish anyone they don’t like or to silence dissent.

“The rules are made for other people, not them,” she said.

Jeffrey Portnoy, a media and First Amendment attorney who represents the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, said restricting opinions about board decisions is “bad policy” and “problematic,” especially for politicians who have to run for reelection.

“It can be argued that it’s a violation of free speech,” he said.

While the name of the offending OHA trustee remains under wraps, it’s likely the three members of the proposed investigating committee — Brendon Kalei‘aina Lee, Carmen Hulu Lindsey and John Waihe‘e IV — are not being targeted.

OHA records indicate that a complaint was transmitted to the board April 17 alleging code of conduct violations by a trustee relating to public statements and comments.

Specifically, they violate the “duty of care and loyalty to OHA” provisions of the board’s executive policy manual, as well as the “duty to obey and support Board decisions” rules outlined by the board’s Code of Conduct and Sanctions for Violations of the Code of Conduct.

Another complaint regarding similarly improper public statements by the same trustee was transmitted to the board chairman May 8.

According to the board’s code of conduct, the board functions best as a “collegial unit.”

“The Board functions well as a unit when its individual members act ethically, are committed to working together, operate in a non-partisan manner and speak with one voice,” it says.

The code, however, goes on to say that trustees are obligated to support decisions they might not necessarily agree with.

“Individual Trustees are able to express their opinions vigorously and openly during the decision-making process and may respectfully disagree with colleagues. However, once a decision has been reached and the Board has taken official action, it is each member’s responsibility to support the decision.”

The code requires trustees to remain impartial and not favor any beneficiary over another. “Although Board members are free to voice their personal opinions, no Board member has the authority to solely act on his or her own to further a personal agenda or to direct OHA employees or operations.”

Conflicts of interests, campaign activities, use of influence and a variety of other activities are covered by the code of conduct.

According to the code, all members of the board shall annually sign statements affirming their compliance with their official oath of office and provisions of the code of conduct.

Punishment for violating the code might include a formal censure, removal from one or all board committees, suspending travel privileges, denying a column in OHA’s Ka Wai Ola newspaper and cutting off the trustee’s allowance or requiring third-party administration of the allowance, the code says.

Portnoy, the attorney, who is a member of the University of Hawaii Board of Regents, said he personally chooses not to criticize his board’s decisions.

“But if the board did have a rule like this, I would either resign or challenge it,” he said.