A Senate committee that investigated the Stevie Wonder concert debacle questions whether the University of Hawaii got its money’s worth from the lawyers hired to respond to the committee and to prepare a fact-finders report.

The criticism of the lawyers and a public relations firm hired by UH to help the university in the aftermath of the failed concert is part of the committee report released by the Senate Special Committee on Accountability on Monday.

The report questions whether Torkildson Katz Moore Hetherington Harris, a law firm hired under a $25,000 contract, and Hoakea Communications, which has a subcontract with Torkildson and
another $25,000 contract with the university, tried to keep information from the committee.

UH hired Torkildson to redact documents and help university officials prepare for the Senate Special Committee on Accountability hearings.

But the committee report questions whether the university received legal services worth at least $25,000.

“They made errors, they redacted names they should not have and they redacted information in public records,” said state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, chairwoman of the committee. “It seemed like they didn’t look at the law.”

The report also questions whether the Cades Schutte LLP law firm earned its $50,000 for preparing a fact-finders report on the UH-Manoa athletics department’s loss of $200,000 in the scam.

Torkildson, Cades Schutte and Hoakea Communications had no comment on the committee report.

The committee report notes that the UH Human Resources Department, not lawyers from Torkildson, actually redacted documents, deleting the names of Stevie Wonder and UH-Manoa Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw from the fact-finders report, along with the names of some UH employees and promoter Bob Peyton.

The committee asked why Torkildson didn’t correct erroneous redactions or advise the university of potential violations of the state’s open-records law.

The committee also took issue with testimony from Torkildson attorney Jeffrey S. Harris during an Oct. 2 hearing.

In a testy exchange, senators tried unsuccessfully to get Harris to explain why the university didn’t answer the committee’s request for a breakdown of costs associated with the concert.

Harris’ evasiveness “raises the possibility that the Torkildson firm was instead withholding information” from the committee and the public, the report said.

Kim accused Barbara Tanabe of Hoakea Communications of asking business leaders and other community members to request that the Senate not hold committee hearings on the concert fiasco.

The committee report asks whether it is “a proper use of public funds for a public relations firm to be hired to try and stop your committee from holding informational briefings.”

Tanabe has denied that she asked people to lobby against holding hearings.

The committee also questioned why Cades Schutte did not question UH President M.R.C.

Greenwood or UH General Counsel Darolyn Lendio in preparing the fact-finders report and whether the university could have saved money by having the Hono­lulu Police Department take witness statements and conduct an investigation.

Senators questioned whether the hiring of Cades Schutte and Hoakea Communications followed the state procurement law, citing advice from the state Procurement Office that hiring Cades Schutte may not have qualified under the “expert witness exemption” used by the university.

The report said Hoakea is supposed to be consulting with the university for research projects, such as the 30 Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea. Senators questioned whether broadening the contract to include the Stevie Wonder concert aftermath was appropriate.

The committee said the hiring of the law firms and Hoakea Communications under procurement exemptions raises larger issues about university spending on outside law and public relations firms when the university has in-house lawyers and public relations staff.

Kim said she is still waiting for answers about the final bills to the university from Torkildson, Cades Schutte and Hoakea Communications, and the committee has asked the university to provide information about how much UH expects to spend on legal and public relations services systemwide in the current fiscal year.

The report notes that UH spent more than $2.2 million on outside legal services from March 2011 through May 2012. It spends about $1.2 million to staff the UH Office of the General Counsel. The university’s in-house public relations budget is $1.2 million.