I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to attend this week’s State Ethics Commission meeting on December 17th, since it was filled with important and interesting topics.
The items up for review included interpretations of several ethics provisions.
It was a heavy load for a commission with a relatively new chairman and two relatively new members.
Among the agenda items:
Commission to Consider Issuing Guidance to the State Administration Regarding Fundraising for Private Charities in State Offices. See staff recommendations.
Commission to Reconsider Current Interpretation of Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 84-14(d), 84-18(b), and 84-18(c). See staff recommendations.
Commission to Consider Issues Relating to the Registration and Reporting Requirements for Lobbyists and Organizations that Engage in Lobbying Activities. See staff recommendations.
The only item to draw news coverage was the commission’s rejection of a staff recommendation that the state shift its support from the Aloha United Way as a central charitable fundraising program with a “combined campaign” that relies primarily on donor choice (see the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “Officials dismiss proposal by staffers to cut AUW“).
The staff recommendation was bound to be controversial because it took the position that aspects of the AUW fundraising violate key provisions of the State Ethics Law because it provides an unwarranted advantage to AUW over competing nonprofit organizations.
During the meeting, however, the staff recommendations were set aside when none of the commissioners would offer a motion to adopt them, and the chairman spoke in favor of AUW.
Although commission meetings often include wide-ranging discussions of staff recommendations, it’s relatively unusual for them to be rejected in total, as in this case.
It may be that this was an isolated situation involving a politically very well connected nonprofit organization, since the AUW board of directors is like a Who’s Who of the business and labor power elite. But the commission’s action could also be an indication an unwillingness by the current commissioners to back up the relatively hard-line positions taken by the commission’s executive director, Les Kondo. This is a situation that deserves careful monitoring in the months ahead.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So,… do we need another commission to make sure that the ethics commission itself operates ethically? Hehe!
Anyhow, I just find it totally amazing that Hawaii has strict rules to ban any sort of soliciting by state employees while on state property or state time. Fair enough. But when it comes to the AUW, not only do those rules for “everybody else” go out the window. AUW is allowed to take donations straight out from an employee’s paycheck. Department heads are allowed to organize contests to see which division will donate the most to AUW. AUW posters are allowed to be plastered on bulletin boards that otherwise contain nothing else but official matters. So it’s not just AUW getting exclusive treatment. They are given *royal* treatment. Just mind-boggling.
At state offices, back in the 1990s, we actually received pre-printed donation cards from AUW with our pay stubs, complete with our SSNs and “suggested” donation amounts. Talk about coercive.
Many (including me) eventually quit giving to AUW after they booted Planned Parenthood from the roster of eligible non-profits and made it difficult to direct individual donations towards PP or other agencies, like the Alzheimer’s Association. Over time, their “Donor’s Choice” program became steadily more onerous to use, making it more likely that people would just give up & allow AUW free rein, if they chose to participate at all. Upshot: our donations go directly to the charities we select, not AUW’s choices.
All in all, it’s high time AUW (and CFC — which is HUGE in DOD workplaces) got the boot from government offices. Let them do their own fund-raising without government subsidies.
As of today, there are over 4,200 public charities (501(c)(3) organizations) in Hawaii. AUW’s program includes “over 300 local non-profit agencies and programs,” which appears to be less than 10%.
Part of the reason there are so few participating in AUW is that the cost of meeting the requirements, is quite high. Requirements include: current audited or reviewed financial statements and 990s for the past three years. Reviewed statements and a 990 can easily cost several thousand dollars for a small organization, and there’s no guarantee the organization will receive donations.
It’s great that AUW is there for organizations who need assistance raising funds, but it shouldn’t be allowed to use state, i.e., taxpayer, resources to do so.