Let's push for real ethics reform at Capitol
 |
StoryChat: Comment on this story |
|
||
 |
|
|
The only thing worse than having politicians policing themselves for ethical infractions is having them do it only when they feel like it. So it wouldn't take much effort to improve on the ethics regulation now in place at the state Capitol.
That being said, the public should insist on something more than what's proposed in House Bill 1909, which is up for a public hearing on Tuesday.
The bill would establish House and Senate committees to oversee ethics rules. Some of these rules mirror or supplement elements of the state ethics code; others deal with additional issues, such as conflicts of interest. These rules already are adopted by the House and Senate, but the bill would make them law, which is a good thing: As it stands now, legislative leaders have discretion to waive the rules.
Through various lapses in ethics over the years, the public has witnessed how inconsistently the rules have been enforced.
But HB 1909 doesn't go far enough. Among its weak links:
For the short term, an alternative bill, HB 1749, offers more improvement. It has not been scheduled for a hearing, and it deserves to be.
This measure, proposed by state Rep. Scott Saiki, D-22nd (Mo'ili'ili, McCully, Kaimuki), would assemble three Democrats and three Republicans on a committee, and it would not leave the decision of whether to investigate up to a single individual.
A minimum of three votes would be required to get a complaint heard, and four votes would be needed to take action.
The problem with this setup, like the bill up for a hearing, is that its members could quietly agree not to investigate the opposing party, or could become mired in partisan retribution. Common Cause, the nonprofit watchdog organization, is advocating for the establishment of an independent arbiter of ethics at the congressional level, one that doesn't comprise the lawmakers themselves.
That would be best for Hawai'i, too. But that would require a constitutional amendment.
The state Constitution dictates that no outside tribunal, such as a court or the state Ethics Commission, interfere with the actual work of creating laws.
This means the commission does have oversight on issues such as legislators accepting gifts or any abuse of power in the House or Senate, but it can't force lawmakers to recuse themselves from voting due to conflicts of interest. The idea is that the lawmaking branch, peopled with part-time officials who have outside financial interests, needs a measure of independence to do its job.
However, other states with part-time legislative bodies have decided that giving full oversight to an independent agency does not unduly hinder lawmakers from functioning. One is Kentucky, whose ethics commission of nine is appointed by the Assembly speaker and Senate president and must include at least three members of the dominant minority party.
This commission merits a serious look as a possible model for the long term.
For now, the public has grown tired of the lackluster self-policing job lawmakers have done. Hawai'i has long valued the principles of ethics in governance — our Ethics Commission has been in place for nearly four decades — and deserves better from its state legislators.
