A Honolulu county worker who was on paid leave for nearly five years while a misconduct investigation dragged on was fired this month following public outrage about his case.
Brandon Kaaa-Swain, an investigator in the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, was put on paid leave in October 2020. He was accused of filing false mileage reimbursements totaling approximately $12,000.
Over the course of an investigation that apparently took 1,751 days, he received even more than he was accused of stealing. His taxpayer-funded paychecks during his leave total over $300,000, city data shows, and his pay scale increased at least twice thanks to union raises. The case drew the public’s ire after it was spotlighted in a recent Civil Beat story. The county issued him a termination letter three weeks later.
Ted Hong, a Hilo-based employment attorney, called the length of Kaaa-Swain’s leave “ridiculous.”
“It’s clear evidence of incompetence or corruption,” he said. “Somebody needs to be fired for this.”
The prosecutor’s office continued to pay the employee while its investigation dragged on year after year. (Kevin Fujii/Civil Beat/2023)
Kaaa-Swain’s case is one of Hawaiʻi’s most egregious uses of so-called stay-away pay, the practice of paying an employee not to work while a misconduct investigation plays out. Civil Beat investigated the practice last year and identified hundreds of employees in county and state agencies getting paid for months or even years after being accused of wrongdoing.
INVESTIGATION: Government Workers In Hawaii Get Paid Not To Work As Misconduct Investigations Drag On For Months Or Years
Unionized government workers can generally be put on 30 days of unpaid leave while a misconduct investigation plays out, but after that, collective bargaining agreements require that paychecks resume whether or not the person is ordered back to work.
Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm declined to be interviewed for this story citing an unspecified collective bargaining process that is ongoing in Kaaa-Swain’s case. However, in a statement, Alm noted that the case began before he took office, and he was sorry it took so long.
Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm said the case began before he took office, and he was sorry it took so long. (Kevin Fujii/Civil Beat/2024)
“Even though disciplinary matters regarding civil service employees are very difficult, particularly those that may lead to termination, there is no excuse for us taking so long to complete our investigation, as has been done in this case,” he said. “I apologize for that.”
Going forward, he said, things will be different.
“We are instituting written policies and procedures with best practice timelines to ensure that all internal investigations are done in a timely manner so this situation does not happen again.”
Attempts to reach Kaaa-Swain for comment were unsuccessful. The Hawaiʻi Government Employees Association, the union that represents him, declined to comment.
City: Mileage Claimed Was ‘Impossible’
Internal investigation records obtained by Civil Beat via public records requests shed light on the case. The records were redacted to hide Kaaa-Swain’s identity, but Civil Beat was able to identify him.
A former deputy sheriff, Kaaa-Swain began working for the prosecutor’s office in April 2018. Almost immediately, there were discrepancies in his mileage, according to a preliminary investigative report filed about two years later.
His claims for reimbursement contradicted odometer readings captured during safety inspections, and he reported driving on days when he was actually working from home, investigative records state.
At the end of May 2018, for instance, he claimed an odometer reading of 29,645 miles. For the next day, he reported it was 31,645 miles, suggesting the investigator drove some 2,000 miles overnight.
A preliminary investigative report notes that Oʻahu has a shoreline of only 227 miles, and it takes four hours to go around the island. Kaaa-Swain would’ve had to drive around Oʻahu 8.8 times and taken about 36 hours to do it to drive the distance he claimed.
“That, obviously, is impossible to do,” the report states.
An employee in the Honolulu prosecutor’s office was accused of filing false mileage reports totaling over $12,000. (Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Office/2020)
The preliminary investigation found probable cause that Kaaa-Swain falsified his mileage statements in 2018 and 2019 and was overpaid. It recommended a full investigation. In a June 2020 letter, Kaaa-Swain was informed he would be investigated but was allowed to remain on regular duty.
By October 2020, the prosecutor’s office had prepared a report justifying Kaaa-Swain’s termination. It said the employee had falsified 18 mileage reports between April 2018 and May 2020.
Records show Kaaa-Swain was being issued hundreds of dollars a month in mileage reimbursements from April 2018 through May 2020. Altogether, investigators determined the false reports amounted to $12,018.29 in reimbursements. Officials were concerned that given the questions about Kaaa-Swain’s honesty, he would no longer be a “creditable witness in judicial proceedings.”
In his defense, Kaaa-Swain previously told city officials there was a lack of clear instructions on how to calculate and record mileage and there were no enforceable rules on how to file it.
Erroneous readings were due to confusion related to him rotating his usage of six different vehicles and his use of apps like Google Maps to calculate mileage, instead of checking the actual odometer, Kaaa-Swain told investigators.
He said he filed mileage from the office even on days he was teleworking because his supervisor told him to. And he cited at least one case in which an odometer reading taken during a safety inspection was incorrect, raising questions about the method the city was using to fact check his reports.
Kaaa-Swain’s supervisor, whose name and pronouns are redacted in the investigative reports, confirmed they told Kaaa-Swain to report all mileage as starting from the office, even if he drove from home. They said Kaaa-Swain is a hard worker who doesn’t always claim overtime or mileage he is entitled to.
But city officials appeared unswayed. Kaaa-Swain was put on paid leave on Oct. 20, 2020. By that December, officials were mulling whether to characterize the false filings as theft, records show.
No Explanation For Four-Year Delay
City officials presented their findings to Kaaa-Swain and a union representative in November 2021 at what’s called a pre-determination hearing. These gatherings usually occur at the end of an investigation when an agency is just about ready to make a decision on discipline, Hong said.
“They’re saying: We have evidence of wrongdoing. What is your position?” Hong said. “They usually have their mind made up.”
At that meeting, Kaaa-Swain presented additional evidence that required additional investigation, according to prosecutor’s office chief of staff Paul Mow.
A year passed. Then another. And another. Meanwhile, the office said, his co-workers had to pick up the slack.
The prosecuting attorney’s office said it is drafting policy changes to prevent excessively long periods of paid leave. (Cory Lum/Civil Beat/2021)
After Civil Beat spotlighted the case in a story last month, the prosecutor’s office finally made a decision. In an Aug. 7 letter, Kaaa-Swain was fired effective Aug. 18. Mow said public attention played no role in the timing of the termination.
The letter justifies the firing by citing the meeting from four years prior, saying what Kaaa-Swain presented that day was “insufficient to prevent the discharge of your employment with the City.”
“Your continued employment with the City will result in the City losing credibility and confidence with the public,” the letter states.
The prosecutor’s office would not specify why it took four years for the city to assess the veracity of what Kaaa-Swain had shared.
“The issues that were raised required looking into all different other areas just to make sure that he was treated fairly,” Christine Denton, special counsel to the Prosecuting Attorney, said.
Employees accused of misconduct are sometimes reassigned to other responsibilities for the duration of the investigation so they are still performing a service for the city. The prosecutor’s office declined to say why it didn’t do so in this case.
Hong said he’s never seen so much time elapse between a pre-determination hearing and a disciplinary decision.
“Never. A year at the most, and that’s really the outlier,” he said. “There is no excuse.”
Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.
Sign Up
Sorry. That’s an invalid e-mail.
Thanks! We’ll send you a confirmation e-mail shortly.