If you don’t read much else today, do read Larry Geller’s searing assessment of public policies, and media coverage, of the problem of homelessness (“Under-reporting the news allows government to get away with murder“).
Geller, writing on his “Disappeared News” blog, blasted state and county government inaction, but went further to document Star-Advertiser under-reporting.
I attended the same meeting that Star-Advertiser reporter Sarah Zoellick did, but came away with much more than she told readers in her Saturday article, Federal and local homeless advocates share ideas (Star-Advertiser p. B5, 11/10/2012). Yes, sharing took place, but it would have been great if the reporter had let us in on the controversies that the meeting revealed.
Larry’s spot on with his analysis. Please take the few minutes to check it out.
Now, here’s one end-of-the-week note as the various investigations of the handling of the Stevie Wonder concert scam wind down.
Back in July, I questioned whether gifts of free season tickets that some UH administrators accepted from the athletic department might have clouded their judgement when reviewing the plans for the proposed concert (“University administrators who gave go-ahead to concert took thousands of dollars in gifts from the athletics department“).
At the time, I wrote:
It isn’t unreasonable to wonder whether acceptance of free season and single-game tickets to UH athletic events from the Athletics Department undermined the independent judgements of administrators when reviewing the proposed fundraising concert. These concerns would be magnified if any administrators received or were promised free tickets to the concert, or used their status as season ticket holders to buy concert tickets during the pre-sale period before tickets were offered to the general public.
Looking at gift disclosures filed with the State Ethics Commission, I reported that Darolyn Lendio, general counsel and v.p. for legal affairs, had received pairs of complimentary season tickets in five sports. Meanwhile, chief financial officer, Howard Todo, was given over tickets and parking passes valued at nearly $5,000 over the past three years.
Now we can add associate general counsel Ryan Akamine, who worked closely with Rich Sheriff and the athletic department in drafting and vetting the concert contract.
Buried down in towards the end of the attachments to the recently released athletic department audit were lists of certain complimentary tickets distributed by former athletic director Jim Donovan.
In 2010, Akamine received two season tickets for the football season from the athletic director’s office.
During the 2012 fiscal year, it was a pair of basketball tickets.
A quick look at gift disclosure statements on file with the ethics commission did not turn up any disclosure of the 2010 tickets by Akamine. I’m not sure whether the FY 2012 basketball tickets should have been reported yet or not, so I’ll leave that question open.
It isn’t that this is a huge deal. But I think it’s fair to ask the question again. Did the acceptance of free season tickets by administrators who had to review and sign off on athletic department decisions undermine their independence? Or is this one of those cases where ethics policy suggests the appearance that their judgement could have been affected is reason enough to shy away from freebies?
And, so far, none of the investigations have pursued the second question I posed–did any of those who reviewed the Stevie Wonder concert proposal quickly line up to buy tickets before they went on sale to the general public? And did the athletic department (or the promoter) offer complimentary tickets to any UH officials? It might have been interesting to know.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Spot on” Ian?? how do you know? you weren’t there so all you have to go on is Keller’s obvious bias against the SA and our government. So how did the other media in town cover this?? oh wait, most didn’t at all. you should be giving the SA credit for at least being there to report so you and your blogger friends can take your Monday morning QB shots at what they left out or could have done better. Not a perfect world my friend.
“you should be giving the SA credit for at least being there to report”
If more people actually gave Honolulu’s only daily newspaper such weak, childish praise and kudos, this would be an even sadder reflection of the state of journalism in this town. We would be accepting garbage. Your comment is visibly emotional and irrational, Oh Please.
Please explain your clear bias against any (dare I say it) criticism that involves this article and this particular Star-Advertiser reporter. And please avoid going into reactionary mode again.
One of the issues which no one wants to address is human euthanasia for people who want to die but are not dying from some awful disease.
I’ve had seven family members commit suicde in the most disgusting and awful ways – one threw herself off a 34th story lanai while a second one rowed himself out into Vancouver Bay, wrapped chains around his legs, and lifted himself over the edge of the boat into the water. Two other family members shot themselves through their mouths and a fifth family member hung himself from a tree after setting himself on fire. A sixth family member killed herself with rat poison and the seventh member drove over a cliff into a remote valley. Her car was found several days later and we were told that she probably lived at least two days before dying.
Why don’t we have access to death in a humane and decent way if we aren’t dying from cancer or some other terminal disease?
you do have access to it and it is not a secret. it is helium and it is painless. when it replaces air, the body shuts down.
what we cannot tell you:
what happens after you are dead.
More importantly, why didn’t sportscaster/lawyer Shawn Ching merit Volleyball tickets?? Such an Injustice!
Seems to me you are conflating two issues, Ian.
One is whether the big shots at UH should be getting tickets as a freebie, either to get them to attend and show support for the team or because it is a usual perk of the position that helps attract and retain talent.
The other is whether a reasonable person would assume that because the individual had such perks, they would be influenced in some inappropriate way which you describe as having their independence compromised?
Hard to follow that reasoning, Ian. The interest that they should be protecting is that of the University, and its Athletic Department from whom they are receiving benefits and salary.
I find the sloppiness explanation provided by the audit more convincing than an unethical behavior explanation.
The question of gifts (or other financial incentives) having a potential to influence official decisions in a bad way is basic to the ethics code.
Look at the gift disclosure provisions, which apply to gifts where the person receiving the gift is in a position to take official action regarding the person giving the gift.
In that particular kind of case, disclosure is a way to guard against or deter inappropriate influence. It’s a key reason the law is there.
If I were a program director going outside normal administrative channels to get an unusual project approved, getting a good relationship with higher-ups via freebies would seem a good strategy.
Why does that seem hard to follow? Or am I missing your point?
No, I don’t think you’re missing th e point. The problem is that because the gift recipient works for “the University” and the gift giver works for “the University,” neither the recipient nor the giver thinks of it as a gift by a third/outside party inteneded or likely to influence official action of the reciopient. In a way, the recipient and the giver are perceived as one and the same.
SO, I think you’re right that this type of gift receiving/giving neds to be reported/tracked but that the recepient is not likely scrimping on her/his independent professional judgment by virtue of receiving a gift from some in the same shop a few buildings over.
If I am correct, and I may not be, all these gifts need to be declared on income tax forms. I personally think that there are no ‘freebies’ because someone else is paying for it. Usually involuntarily.
Ian, thank you for raising again the issue of free tickets or season passes to sporting events.
The State Ethics Commission has been dealing with this issue–with tremendous resistance from certain state agencies–for years–since the mid-seventies at least. One board gave its board members each about 8 tickets to each sporting event, though the law of the board stated that board members were not to be compensated for their board service (as is typical for almost all state boards). As I recall, the Commission issued three advisory opinions to this board over a ten or so year period to stop providing so many tickets, which apparently could be used for personal purposes.
The State Ethics Commission has stated that tickets can only be given out by a state agency if there is a “legitimate state purpose” for doing so, which would be looked at ultimately by the State Ethics Commission in terms of a violation of the “Fair treatment” section of the ethics code (HRS section 84-13). I think it is the case that in determining whether there is a legitimate state purpose, discretion has to be accorded to the state agency–and that does pose a problem of course in terms of line-drawing.
The doctrine of separation of powers does not give the State Ethics Commission the right to “run” the separate branches of government or their agencies or departments. However, it seems where there is a palpable misuse of state resources (and tickets are state resources) the Commission can act.
Ian, as to your exchange with Lopaka43, I am confused about one thing. You quoted in your blog article (“UH audit of athletics shies away from administrative freebies”–November 14) that the “special audit” ordered by the Board of Regents had a “terse little section”, as you described it.
You then quoted this section, which states that “UHM Athletics Director approves the issuance of complimentary tickets to the Board of Regents and certain University executive personnel.”
In my view, and I thought this had been established by the State Ethics Commission and understood by the powers that run UH, sports tickets, or sports season passes, are state property, and only the “head” of the agency would be responsible for determining who gets those tickets. In other words, the director of the Athletics department does not determine who gets the tickets as something like a done deal that cannot be reviewed by the head officials at UH. Those who run UH ultimately determine the policy of who gets tickets (for legitimate state purposes), and should put that in guidelines for the Athletics director to follow. If the Athletics director strays from that policy in good faith, then that would seem to be an administrative issue. And how many tickets the Board of Regents members get, and other top UH officials, should be decided by the Board of Regents, or by the UH President or Chancellor, of course with input from the Athletics director regarding the policy. If the Board of Regents (or President or Chancellor) seems to be going overboard as to themselves or others as to tickets, then the State Ethics Commission should step in when discretion seems to be palpably abused.
What I am trying to say is that it is not (or should not be) the Athletics director trying to influence top UH officials with gifts of tickets–the gifts policy should be established by UHM–not the Athletics director. Where is it in this state government that a subordinate state branch or division can give state property willy-nilly to top officials in the department? The person or persons that head the department should be the ones in control of the use of state resources. I think this goes without saying.
So, to my mind initially, there should not be the case that the Athletics director has an unfettered hand to pass out state resources. This should never be the case. There should be policies set at the top.
So I see a problem with the notion that top officials are swayed with tickets they get, when they in fact control those tickets. Doesn’t the Board of Regents ultimately control everything else?
I was hired by the English Department at UHM to teach full time, in 1974. The Chair of the English Department told me, though, that I would not be a faculty member until the matter was approved by the Board of Regents. And the Board of Regents did rule on my being hired–of course paying deference to the English Department, assuming there were no other issues. I have no idea what policies regarding hiring are in place, but I would assume hirings of faculty and similar individuals, even individuals in the Athletics department, is subject to approval by the Board of Regents.
Ian, perhaps you are right about the Athletics department willy-nilly passing out season tickets to superiors–and this is what the audit you quoted said. Should the first question be, however, whether this is a proper practice. Again, the heads of agencies should determine how to legitimately use state resources. If those policies appear to run afoul of the proper use of discretion–and appear to be nothing but freebies given for no other purpose but as freebies, then it seems that is an issue for the State Ethics Commission. When I left the State Ethics Commission, I thought that was the policy, and I thought UHM understood that.
Thanks for following up on this. I just don’t get the notion in the audit you quoted that the Athletics director determines who gets tickets, rather than the people who run UHM. This would certainly be an anomaly in the state, and maybe it is.
Also, I agree with the comment by SteveLaudig above, though, like him, I am not absolutely sure–but that is what I thought–it would be good to find someone to comment on this point who knows. Thanks.