Donna Mercado Kim continually sends requests for detailed responses about a range of issues, from anonymous complaints to spending concerns.
Emails between an influential state senator and leaders of the University of Hawaii show she regularly uses her position as chair of the higher education committee to pepper them with demands for information.
But Donna Mercado Kim’s unceasing attentiveness is coming under increased scrutiny as UH undertakes a search for a new president, an event she has expressed deep interest in. At the same, Kim continues to castigate the university for lack of student housing, among other things, and played a lead role in the Senate’s recent decision to reject the leader of the Board of Regents.
Kim, chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, did not respond to requests for an interview for this story. She previously has insisted she does not micromanage UH.
But the emails demonstrate that she often drills down deep into the academic and administrative weeds, demanding answers and repeatedly following up until officials respond.
After a number of people raised concerns that Kim frequently texts regents during regent meetings suggesting what they should ask and what they should say, Civil Beat requested texts, emails and other correspondence between each member of the 11-member Board of Regents and their staff and Kim from June 1, 2023, through March 5 — about a month before Alapaki Nahale-a became chair and until he was rejected 13-12 by the Senate to continue serving on the board.
Civil Beat received 122 pages of emails sent between Kim and Board of Regents staff. But the regents’ office denied a request for text messages that were between personal cell phones — Kim’s or the individual regent’s — because they were not a record maintained by the board. The regents are not issued phones by the state and use their personal cells.
Still, the emails between Kim and state-maintained email accounts show a state senator with tremendous interest in all things UH, and a predilection for instructing campus leaders on their responsibilities as she sees them — even though a 2000 constitutional amendment gave UH governing autonomy, meaning that it has more control in the management of its resources.
As chair of the higher ed committee, Kim holds a lot of power over the university’s budget and spending priorities, and university officials often are grilled and even berated by Kim and others on the committee when they appear before them at hearings.
So it’s not a surprise that the responses from administration officials reflected in the emails are almost always prompt and deferential, though sometimes they directly counter Kim’s take on specific inquiries.
The emails released to Civil Beat involve a number of issues but generally focus on the administration itself, UH expenses and complaints. This story details three situations that exemplify Kim’s correspondence with the regents’ office. But there were many others emails on a variety of topics in the 10-month period.
In June 2023 Kim and higher education co-chair Michelle Kidani wrote to the UH Board of Regents to say they had received an anonymous letter the previous month about the associate director position at the UH Institute for Astronomy, or IfA.
“The BOR is the governing body of the university and therefore should be the ones to address the concerns that are brought to our attention,” the senators wrote. “The sender of the email was compelled to reach out to us in the hope that there could be transparency regarding the hiring process.”
The anonymous letter argued that UH President David Lassner had placed David Lonborg, the interim IfA director, into the job for political reasons.
“Working with David Lonborg is extremely frustrating and exhausting as he has NO science background and is not interested in science even, he is a lawyer by trade,” the anonymous letter said. “David Lonborg does NOT want to be here, we CANNOT get him to do work or simple follow-through. (All) that David Lonborg appears to do is travel to the other islands and schmooze.”
Yvonne Lau, the board’s executive administrator and secretary, thanked the senators for their email and said the administration would be asked to look into the matter. Lau also said that other constituents who have future complaints or concerns regarding UH could call the Whistleblower Hotline, a line operated by an outside confidential reporting service that is available for anonymous reports.
Kim emailed right back, arguing that the “more appropriate action” was for the board — and not the administration — to look into the matter and to report directly back to the senators.
“It is our expectation that the BOR is not just a pass through entity,” Kim wrote.
On June 16, then-BOR Chair Randy Moore responded, saying that the regents are responsible for investigating gripes about the conduct of the university president and that the president is responsible for all other complaints.
Moore pointed out there were a number of inaccuracies in the anonymous letter, notably that it wasn’t Lassner who appointed Lonborg to the job but the director of the astronomy department, Gunther Hasinger. The appointment was approved by vice chancellor for research Michael Bruno and then by Lassner, who at the time was the interim chancellor for Manoa as well as president. That, said Moore, is what board policy requires.
Moore also said the board was not the entity to conduct an investigation. And he pointed out that it was very difficult to follow up on an anonymous complaint.
But Kim continued pressing, insisting that it is ultimately the president who is responsible for the issues raised in the letter.
Moore replied that he would make sure that Lassner responded to Kim. On June 30, Lassner did, essentially agreeing with Moore about the complaint and refuting specific allegations such as the one about Lonborg’s travel.
“While IfA leadership relies principally on electronic communications to bridge their office and astronomy sites on multiple islands, some inter-island travel for in-person meetings is also crucial,” Lassner emailed. “These are not wastes of time.”
“I hope you find this reply responsive to your conveyance of this anonymous complaint,” Lassner concluded.
In July Kim wrote to the regents to call attention to news reports about U.S. Supreme Court justices participating in “assorted fundraising events involving wealthy donors” or accepting all-expenses-paid trips to speak at law schools, one of which she noted was the University of Hawaii.
“As a public institution, it would behoove the University of Hawaii to make known the amount of money it has spent to lure these prominent Supreme Court justices to our islands,” Kim wrote.
While she said she did not question the value of “the nation’s top legal minds” speaking to local law students, alumni and working professionals, she argued that the process should be transparent, given that the travel and other expenses were paid for with taxpayer money.
Two months later Kim emailed the regents again, saying she was still waiting for an answer. She specifically wanted to know the number of trips and travelers, what funds were used, the duration of stay, the airfare and the class of service, hotel accommodations “and any other expenses related to each visit. You should also describe the nature of the visit, such as the classes taught or lectures delivered, meetings with students or attorneys in our community, public appearances, or other benefits accrued to the school and public.”
On Sept. 23, Camille Nelson, the dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law, replied with the specifics of the UH’s Jurist-in-Residence Program. She included a chart showing the details of the visits of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — an accounting of expenses that went back over an 18-year period.
“Unlike the situations reported in the national media regarding arrangements and generous funding provided to some of the justices, I have learned from my colleagues that our program has never supplied honoraria nor any form of lavish support to the justice,” Nelson wrote. “Instead, the Law School, the Hawaii State Bar Association, and the Hawaii Supreme Court Justices benefitted from what we learned from these in-person visits with the justices.”
The visits also involved meeting with high school students, and the program was supported philanthropically through the University of Hawaii Foundation.
Nelson also referenced a July 15, 2023, Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial that argued that a $500,000 junket to Indonesia for Justice Clarence Thomas on behalf of Republican billionaire Harlan Crow “is a far cry from justices on the academic lecture circuit, such as the University of Hawai’i law school’s Jurist-in-Residence program.”
Kim’s response: “Received! Mahalo.”
On Feb. 7 Kim emailed Lassner, the regents and Bonnie Irwin, the chancellor at the University of Hawaii Hilo.
“I am reaching out due to concerns that have been brought to my attention regarding the ongoing construction of the UH Hilo cafeteria,” Kim wrote, adding that it was her understanding that the work has resulted in “an obstruction” in front of the cafeteria, “forcing students and faculty to go up and down two flights of stairs to access it.”
Kim asked: What are the cost and timeline of the work? Why has it taken so long? Are students and faculty kept abreast of the construction? How are the workers managed? And was the project put out to bid?
“Please submit your response no later than Wednesday, February 21st, 2024,” she added.
A week later, Irwin got back to Kim with answers to all the questions: The $4.5 million project would be completed July 26. The work was delayed because of structural challenges in building a canopy at the Campus Center’s main entry. Notices were issued on the project’s progress. The general contractor was responsible for managing the workers. And the project was indeed sent out to bid per the state’s procurement process.
“We understand that restriction of this entrance is an inconvenience to our campus community,” Irwin wrote. “The Campus Center dining hall remains accessible through two other entrances.”
The emails show little interactions between Kim and other regents besides Moore, who stepped down from the board in July.
There is little email interaction recorded with Alapaki Nahale-a, for example, although Kim appears to be in steady contact with regent Lauren Akitake. It includes an email Jan. 9 with the subject matter line “BOR Attendance at UH Info Briefing.”
“Lauren, Hopefully you will be able to watch the video at a later date,” Kim writes, aware that Akitake would not be able to attend due to previously scheduled legal work on Maui.
As Civil Beat reported the next day, the briefing featured senators and UH leaders clashing over funding for student housing.
Akitake wrote back to Kim the following day: “I had the opportunity to watch the hearing last night. I am disappointed in the administration’s performance. Let me know if you have any questions.”
Kim also emailed Akitake on Feb. 3, encouraging her to watch a follow-up briefing with the UH athletics department — “since they were not at the UH budget briefing” — and with the UH cancer center.
“You might want to watch it on-line or when you have the time,” said Kim. “Hope you are doing well!”
Akitake’s reply: “Thank you for your email and for keeping me updated and in the loop. I appreciate that very much. I have a 9:30 a.m. client but will watch the hearing as soon as I can. Thank you!”
Just a few weeks later, Akitake was approved 5-0 in Kim’s higher education committee, with the chair singing her praises as the kind of regent UH needs — transparent, accountable and not willing to simply swallow and regurgitate the administration line.
Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.
