The State Ethics Commission has again cautioned lawmakers that invitations to “‘food and drink’ events such as breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and receptions,” including fundraisers, are considered to be gifts under provisions of the State Ethics Code.
In an email to all legislators yesterday, Ethics Commission Executive Director Les Kondo said the commission has standing guidance that spells out how the gift provisions apply to these invitations. He directed legislators to the publication, “Guidelines for Gifts Under the State Ethics Code.”
According to those guidelines, accepting invitations to “food and drink” events valued at under $25 may generally be accepted.
Receptions and meals, including ticketed events, valued at $25 or more, may not be accepted by a legislator or employee unless there is a legitimate “state benefit,” i.e., there is a reasonable relationship between the event and the legislator’s or employee’s official duties. Generally, a desire to “show support” for an organization by attending a fundraising function is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a “state benefit.”
Kondo also invited legislators to contact the commission with questions about any specific invitation being offered.
So, what does a person do when, in the course of a sometimes long legislative career, a legislator goes to a function, let;s say a birthday or a retirment party, at the invitation of someone who may or may not be a business person, non-profit executive, former legislator, or other legislator, but a firend nonetheless?
Is the person prohibited from attending if the per capita expense exceeds $25? If so, that’s ridiculous and from a world inhabited by people with no friends and no life.
Yup it’s tough being a legislator. And, if Santa is considered a non-profit executive you better make sure that all of those gifts under the tree are less than $25.
If the person does not have business with the legislator, the gift provision would not appear to apply. It restricts gives that can reasonably be inferred to be made to influence one’s official duties. There is also an exemption for” “Exchanges of approximately equal value on holidays, birthday, or special occasions,” although I don’t know how that would be applied in the case of a lobbyist’s gift to a legislator.
Got it; this event probably wouldn’t be covered because it’s not clear who paid what (see below).
Ian, the State Ethics Code is made up of a number of separate laws. HRS s. 84-11 is entitled “Gifts”, and relates to the acceptance or solicitation of gifts, and prohibits gifts “under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence … or is intended as a reward for” the “performance” of “official duties”. You are correct in assuming this law requires the donor of the gift to be affected by the official action of a legislator or state employee as one of the considerations in applying this statute.
Exchanges of gifts of approximately equal value is part of another law, HRS s. 84-11.5 (entitled “Reporting of gifts”), that relates to the requirement to disclose gifts in excess of $200 if the “source” of the gift(s) has interests that “may” be affected by “official action or lack of action” by the recipient.
The disclosure of gifts law allows for certain exceptions from the reporting requirement (this is typical), such as “exchanges of approximately equal value on holidays, birthday, or special occasions.”
These are two separate laws that have to be applied individually to a situation they address. As the former executive director of the State Ethics Commission, I wrote the gifts disclosure law, which was passed by the legislature in 1992.
As for a “lobbyist’s gift to a legislator” that you raise, the Commission would look at both laws, as to the applicability of each. The gift might be prohibited if it meets the test in HRS s. 84-11.
The gift might be a reportable gift if it meets the requirements of the gifts disclosure law, HRS s. 84-11.5, and is not excluded by any of the seven exemptions in that law–such as exchanges of approximately equal value on holidays, birthday, or special occasions.
Since these laws both deal with gifts, of course they can be confusing, which is why the State Ethics Commission is staffed with five lawyers, as well as for the interpretation and enforcement of other laws under the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Until 1992, there was not a gifts disclosure law–thus, nobody had to report any gifts received, which made it difficult for the Commission to know if HRS s. 84-11 had been violated or not, since there was no legal obligation to report any gift.
While director of the State Ethics Commission, I introduced bills to reduce the reporting threshold of gifts from $200 to something lower, like $50, so that it would be easier to enforce HRS s. 84-11. The Commission would know more about the number of gifts received and their value. A lower threshold is needed for the reporting of gifts in order to know what gifts have been given (or solicited) that might be impermissible. Thanks.
No, he is not prohibited from attending. He or she is supposed to do what the rest of us do – buy a ticket, pay for the meal, avoid the appearance of benefitting from public office
No ticket involved, just some folks who got together and put on a retirement party for their friend in a carport with tons of good food and drink; invitations came from the retiree but it was paid for by some in the group, no one knows exactly who.
If a legislator wants to go to an expensive event that does not have a “state benefit”, can’t s/he pay for it from a campaign fund?
Good question. Don’t know.