The University of Hawaii is reviewing all decisions made by the Board of Regents since July after the state Supreme Court said yesterday that Gov. Linda Lingle violated the law by holding over six regents past the end of their terms.

The court ordered Lingle to name six new members to the University of Hawaii Board of Regents within 30 days from a list of 22 names given to the governor on Feb. 21 by a newly formed Regents Candidate Advisory Council.

The governor nominated six regents from the advisory council's list who were confirmed by the Senate earlier this year. One nominee, Kitty Lagareta, was rejected by the Senate, but Lingle “;held over”; Lagareta and five other regents past the expiration of their terms.

“;We conclude that the terms of six members of the University of Hawaii Board of Regents expired on June 30, 2008, and the holdovers by those six regents contravene Act 56, Sections 1 and 5, Session Laws of 2007,”; the order signed by all five justices said.

The court issued its ruling on a motion brought by Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and Education Chairman Norman Sakamoto after hearing oral arguments yesterday.

“;The good news is we're back on track and the board can start functioning,”; said Jon Van Dyke, a UH constitutional law professor who argued the case for the Senate Democratic leaders. “;A lot of important decisions have to be made, including the picking of a new president, and it's important that there not be any further confusion over how the board is supposed to operate.”;

But Van Dyke said decisions made by the board since July could possibly be challenged.

“;There's no easy answer to that,”; he said. “;It would have to be looked at (on) a case-by-case basis.”;

In a written statement, Hanabusa said, “;Our goal from the beginning has been to give force to the public's clear mandate to help remove politics from the management of the University of Hawaii system. With today's ruling we all hope that the governor acts quickly to name replacement regents and get this process back on track.”;

In a written statement Gov. Lingle said she was disappointed, “;but will, of course, comply with the Court's ruling.”;

Presley Pang, executive secretary to the board, said today's scheduled regents meeting likely will be postponed in light of yesterday's ruling. A broad review of the board's decisions since July is under way.

In October the board met on Maui to approve the university's budget and would not have had a quorum without the held-over regents, according to board records.

Voters passed a constitutional amendment creating the Regents Candidate Advisory Council in 2006, and the Legislature passed a law, Act 56, last year implementing the change in the regent selection process.

Before the amendment and the new law, the governor had sole discretion over nominations to the board, which oversees the 10-campus UH system.

During yesterday's arguments, justices raised questions about whether decisions being made by the current board are valid and over how much time the governor needs to nominate new regents.

Van Dyke said the constitutional amendment passed by voters to have the governor select regents from a list provided by a screening committee was an attempt to “;depoliticize the university.”;

He argued that the amendment and the law, passed over Lingle's veto, detailing how new regents should be appointed required the governor to appoint all new members to the board by the time the regents' terms expired.

But Deputy Attorney General Charlene Aina said the law does not specify a deadline for Lingle to nominate regents from the list. “;The Governor is disappointed that the Supreme Court has apparently construed the statute to have a time requirement in this situation…,”; the statement from Lingle's office said.

In their questioning, several justices suggested that a previous Supreme Court case established that the governor has a “;reasonable time”; to nominate members of a board.

“;Have we now reached a point where there is now a reasonable amount of time? ... The question still remains,”; said Justice Simeon Acoba.

Chief Justice Ronald Moon pressed Aina on why the governor has not nominated new regents. “;I want to know what the circumstances are so we can determine a reasonable amount of time,”; Moon said. “;I think the totality of circumstances is the test.”;

Aina said the governor does not believe a reasonable time had passed as of yesterday's hearing. She said other laws and precedent suggest the governor can hold over board members for two sessions of the Legislature, theoretically until after Lingle leaves office.

Justices also questioned whether the decisions made by the current board could be challenged.

“;There's a big cloud over everything the regents are doing,”; said Van Dyke.