Bishop Street Lawyer Behind OHA Power Grab?
by Andrew Walden
Has OHA Board of Trustees Chair Kai Kahele ‘unlawfully’ ousted OHA’s CEO with the help of Bishop Street lawyer Paul Alston?
That’s the allegation in OHA CEO Stacy Ferreira’s lawsuit filed November 5, 2025 in Oahu’s First Circuit Court.
Here are some excerpts:
34. On or about June 26, 2025, Kahele terminated longtime Native Hawaiian rights advocate and attorney Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman from his position as Board counsel without consultation, approval, or notice to the Board.
35. Kahele then retained new outside Board counsel without consultation, approval, or notice to the Board.
OHA BoT minutes from June 26, 2025 appear to be the last mention of “Board Counsel, Naiwi Wurdeman.”
Wurdeman’s name does not appear in the OHA BoT draft minutes from June 30, 2026. Instead the minutes state: “Chair Kaialiʻi Kahele introduces staff and outside counsel.” “Paul Alston, Counsel” is among those listed as ‘Guest’ in the minutes.
Then, without any recorded vote or discussion by Trustees, OHA BoT minutes from July 10, 2025 list “Paul Alston, Board Counsel” among those present at the meeting.
There is no record of any OHA contract with either Wurdeman or Alston on HANDS. According to OHA’s FY 2024-25 check register, obtained by Hawai’i Free Press via a UIPA request, Wurdeman was paid $82,918.14 as Board Counsel.
Does Alston, Senior Counsel at Dentons, have a conflict of interest as OHA Board Counsel?
Denton’s annual take for OHA lawyering has ranged from $122K to $217K according to OHA check registers for years 2021-2025.
As Board Counsel, will Alston be willing to place Dentons’ cash flow at risk by providing the Trustees with legal advice Kahele doesn’t want to hear?
Alston did not respond to a request for comment.
Here are some more details from Ferreira’s complaint:
The Board Limits Its Investigation into Kahele’s Misconduct
68. In July 2025, Ferreira received an email from Paul D. Alston (“Alston”), the Board’s new interim counsel, stating that the Board would investigate only whether Kahele created a toxic or hostile work environment, abused his authority, or whether his conduct was unbecoming of a trustee and chair.
69. Ferreira’s other serious allegations — that Kahele violated the State Ethics Code, breached a number of fiduciary duties, and broke OHA’s internal policies — were entirely excluded from the Board’s investigation.
70. Alston informed Ferreira that she would now directly report to Souza.
71. Although the Board was actively investigating Kahele, it took no action to ensure that he would not engage in retaliation or otherwise abuse his authority as chair.
72. While under investigation, Kahele retained access to OHA resources, including the Board and OHA corporation counsel attorneys, as well as OHA’s files and records, and used executive session meetings to appeal to the Board into investigating Ferreira.
73. On August 1, 2025, (OHA Trustees Vice-Chair Keoni) Souza informed Ferreira that the Board would decline to act on her allegations because the 30-day window for trustees to request an investigation had already closed.
Souza’s 2020 and 2022 OHA campaign manager was Michael Miske’s lawyer, Thomas Otake.
74. At the August 21, 2025 Board meeting, Kahele introduced changes to the OHA EPM to permit trustees full access to the files and records of OHA’s internal investigations, even when that trustee is the subject of the investigation.
75. Kahele was fully aware of the ongoing investigation into him and abused the public’s trust by proposing a policy change that would grant him full access to the full investigative report, which, upon information and belief,includes detailed discussions and identifies the witnesses involved in examining his misconduct.
76. The Board’s endorsement of this blatant conflict of interest erodes public confidence in its oversight role at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and further illustrates Kahele’s singular pursuit of authority over OHA. The Investigator’s Report
77. On September 17, 2025, Ferreira received from Alston the Executive Summary of Findings regarding her report against Kahele, which was limited in scope. Alston informed her that the investigator did not consider her other allegations — including whether Kahele violated the State Ethics Code and breached his duties as fiduciary — because “the balance of the complaint did not involve HR-related issues.”
78. The investigator addressed only the questions of whether Kahele created a toxic or hostile work environment, abused his authority, or engaged in conduct unbecoming of a trustee and chair.
79. The investigator acknowledged the “significant systemic issues that are preventing the OHA Board of Trustees and Administration from working together to achieve a shared vision,” noting the dysfunctional and unmarked division of responsibilities between the administrator, the chair, and the Board, which limits OHA’s “effectiveness and diminish[es] its ability to achieve its mission.”
80. Alston directed Ferreira to acknowledge that Kahele is her superior and that, as his subordinate, she is expected to follow his direction notwithstanding that her employment contract and OHA’s EPM state that she is responsible to the Board as a whole, rather than any individual trustee.
81. Alston’s decree to Ferreira strips other trustees of their authority to act collectively through her or to influence policy and decision‑making at OHA because their administrator is bound in servitude to only the chair.
82. On or about September 17, 2025, Ohta told Ferreira that Kahele requested the full investigative report.
83. Ferreira expressed to Ohta her concern that providing Kahele with the full investigative report would expose witnesses and breach their expectation of confidentiality.
84. Ohta acknowledged that Kahele’s request was problematic but was permissible with the recent changes to the EPM.
85. Ferreira requested that Ohta remind Kahele that the HWPA prohibits retaliation. Ohta agreed to do so.
86. Ohta shared the full investigative report with Kahele. Ferreira never received the full investigative report.
87. On September 17, 2025, having reviewed the full investigative report, Kahele agendized a “special meeting of executive session” for September 23, 2025.
88. On September 18, 2025, Ferreira called the Attorney General to provide an update on the investigator’s findings and the recent EPM changes.
The Retaliation Against Ferreira
89. On September 23, 2025, the Board entered into executive session, in part, to discuss “matters involving alleged noncompliance with governance policies and administrative authorities.”
90. Ferreira was not invited to attend this meeting.
91. Unbeknownst to Ferreira, Kahele convened the special executive session to file a complaint against her because she reported him to the Attorney General. Kahele has failed and refused to provide Ferreira a copy of his complaint.
92. Ohta was subsequently summoned to the boardroom during the executive session.
93. After the executive session, Souza and Ohta met Ferreira in her office. Souza informed Ferreira that the Board had voted to place her on administrative leave pending its investigation.
94. Ferreira requested clarification from Souza as to what the Board will be investigating.
95. Souza stated that someone from within the Green administration notified the Board that Ferreira contacted the Attorney General and allegedly filed a complaint against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Board of Trustees, and Kahele.
96. Ferreira asked Ohta which agencies should be contacted in the event that someone had a complaint against a public official.
97. Ohta responded that the State Ethics Commission and the Attorney General’s office are the appropriate public agencies. Notably, Ferreira first reported her grievance to the Board. Anticipating that the Board would not fully investigate Kahele, Ferreira went to the Attorney General.
98. In order to minimize exposure of the Board’s removal of Ferreira, Souza requested Ferreira to draft a memorandum stating that, until further notice, she would be taking personal leave. Fearing that refusing to comply would be construed as insubordination, Ferreira drafted the memorandum in accordance with Souza’s request.
99. Souza demanded that Ferreira return her laptop, badge, keys, and all OHA property. After Souza and Ohta reviewed and approved her memorandum, they watched as Ferreira collected her personal effects. Souza then immediately escorted Ferreira out of the executive offices, and she exited the building ….
---30---
PDF: Ferreira vs OHA
RELATED: Lawsuit: OHA Budget Process Rooted in Illegal Power Grab