Ex-ACLU official won't disclose guards' accusers

By Vicki Viotti and David Waite
Advertiser Staff Writers

A former American Civil Liberties Union official today told a state labor board that he won't answer questions concerning communications with sources who allege wrongdoing by guards at the Hawai'i Youth Correctional Facility.

Instead, attorney Jeff Harris told the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board that it would take a court ruling for former ACLU-Hawai'i Legal Director Brent White to answer questions about the substance of his investigation at the youth facility.

The United Public Workers union, which represents youth corrections officers at the Windward O'ahu facility, had hoped to force White to name the youthful offenders who accused guards when interviewed in June and July by White or his associates.

Yesterday, labor board Chairman Brian Nakamura said he and board member Kathleen Racuya-Markrich believe that the board's priority should be to protect the "identity and the safety" of the youths interviewed.

The board yesterday ruled that White won't have to name those who accused the guards but will have to provide other information as long as it does not violate the "attorney-client privilege" between the ACLU and the youths.

However, Harris today said that any discussions with or letters from HYCF wards would be covered by that privilege.

Nakamura overruled Harris' persistent objections to questions, saying he was "very, very disappointed" with the use of "a technical proceeding" in today's hearing.

White's findings included reports of rape, brutality and crowded conditions. Gov. Linda Lingle in late August reassigned the facility's administrator and a corrections specialist pending a state criminal investigation in response to the ACLU report.

White today did discuss conversations with state Attorney General Mark Bennett about his investigation.

White said that Bennett told him his staff had found "there were cases where kids had to pee in buckets, that he thought it was isolated instances.

"He said he thought it was a clean, nice facility, to which I responded that I suppose you wouldn't mind us conducting our own investigation," White said.

On Sept. 16, guard Li'a "Oli" Olione was indicted by an O'ahu grand jury on 10 counts, including sexual assault, kidnapping, terroristic threatening, extortion and criminal solicitation. He is accused of raping a girl in the facility on June 14 and 15. The girl is between 14 and 16 years old, the indictment said.

Yesterday a second guard, Myles Manlinguis, was indicted on charges of indimidating a witness on Sept. 16. According to the indictment, Manlinguis "used force or directed a threat" against a youth at the facility whom he believed would be called as a witness, said Dwight Nadamoto, deputy attorney general.

UPW attorney Herbert Takahashi told the labor board yesterday that the accused guards have a right under the U.S. Constitution to know who their accusers are.

Takahashi said the ACLU waived the attorney-client privilege by giving Lingle a copy of White's report and by posting a copy of it on the Internet.

But Harris told the board that White should not be made to answer questions because the underlying complaint brought by the UPW to the labor board is that the state engaged in "prohibited practices" by permitting the ACLU to interview wards of the state at the youth facility. Harris said there is "no reasonable relationship" between what White found during his investigation and the question of whether the state erred by authorizing it.

In addition, Harris said the youths interviewed during the ACLU investigation are "potential clients" and, therefore, what they told investigators is protected under attorney-client privilege.

Notes taken by White and ACLU paralegals are considered "work product" that will likely be used if the ACLU sues the state over conditions at the facility and are also privileged information, Harris said.

But in order for the ACLU to have a legitimate attorney-client relationship with the youths interviewed, Takahashi said, their parents, legal guardians or Family Court would have had to approve the relationship. He said minors are not capable of entering into such a relationship by themselves.