Posted on: Wednesday, November 19, 2003

EDITORIAL
Regent ethics policy demands clarification

The recently reconstituted University of Hawai'i Board of Regents has set itself on a course of new ethical standards that, perhaps to its chagrin, it finds difficult to meet.

The standard began emerging when former Regent Everett Dowling proposed that a parcel of land he controlled on Maui be used for an Institute for Astronomy development. Although Dowling offered the land to the university at a discount and he received clearances from the university and the state Ethics Commission, fellow regents Ted Hong and Kitty Lagareta balked, arguing the conflict could not be ignored and regents should be held to a "higher standard."

If there is even an appearance of conflict, they said, the regent should step aside. Dowling subsequently resigned.

That's fine. But now we learn that regents Hong and board chair Patricia Lee find themselves confronting the same issues that faced Dowling, although the precise circumstances differ.

Lee has disclosed that the law firm where she works has some four contracts with the university worth more than $610,000. She is not directly involved in the work on any of those contracts.

And Hong has disclosed that his sister, Lea Hong, was the attorney for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in its suit against NASA and the UH Institute of Astronomy over the W.M. Keck outrigger telescope project on Mauna Kea.

Hong says he has been firm in his determination not to discuss that project or the lawsuit with his sister.

But he says he has long been concerned about the "cultural integrity" of the Mauna Kea mountaintop (an issue that was central to the OHA suit), and he was publicly critical of the Institute for Astronomy at a time his sister's lawsuit was pending.

In both cases an argument can be made about the appearance of conflict of interest. Should Hong and Lee follow Dowling out the door?

Probably not. In fact, we believe it was unnecessary for Dowling to resign in his case.

Rather than a revolving door of regents, what is needed is clear, coherent and explicit policies on conflict or appearance of conflict on the board. It should be a policy that is applied uniformly.

Hawai'i is a small place, and there will always be connections between the university and the prominent and busy people who are named to the Board of Regents. So it is unrealistic to expect there will never be a case of an appearance of conflict involving a regent and university business.

What is realistic to expect is that such conflicts be fully and publicly disclosed as they occur. After that, the affected regent must stay at arm's length not only from formal votes on the matter, but from public discussion that could sway his or her fellow board members.