HB2457 is on the committee’s 2 p.m. agenda for decision making.

The bill would would open the door to legal bribery by allowing gifts of unlimited value to be solicited or accepted by state employees and elected officials even if it is obvious “the gift is intended to influence the legislator or employee in the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action on the legislator’s or employee’s part.”

It’s important to keep in mind that the freebies aren’t limited to legislators or to elected officials. All employees would get to vie for those rewards for official action they take. Trying to block an investigation of your business? Give the department head a couple of tickets to a benefit concert, and throw in a couple more for friends. Simple.

That, to put it bluntly, is an effective repeal of this important part of government ethics.

The issue was first raised by attorney-lobbyist Bill Kaneko last year after lawmakers were advised not to accept tickets to a fundraiser sponsored by the Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs. Kaneko is the CEO of the group, chair of Governor Abercrombie’s campaign committee, and a key insider in the administration.

This year, Kaneko’s interest put the matter on Governor Abercrombie’s agenda, with the result that HB2457, and a Senate companion bill (SB2719) are part of the governor’s legislative package.

Both bills have single referrals, meaning that there are fewer points where public input can effectively block their passage.

I have to admit that I’m not an absolutist on the issue of inviting legislators to charitable events. When I served as executive director of Common Cause/Hawaii back in the 1980s, we routinely invited legislators who we felt shared our values to attend our modest fundraisers.

But I fear Kaneko harkens back to the good old days of the 1990s when he was director of Asian Pacific outreach for the Democratic National Committee, and rubbing shoulders with lobbyists and other power brokers at charity events was part of the political routine. Of course, that was a period that ended in scandal and prosecutions for illegal fundraising activities.

So how do we sort things out? I don’t agree with the assessment of John Temple, over at Civil Beat, who says any gifts of this kind would be too many.

On the other hand, the League of Women Voters pointed to an excellent article describing the lessons learned by convicted felon and former big league lobbyist, Jack Abramoff (“To my great shame“).

Abramoff had lots to say about how lobbyists work and the traps for public officials. Legislators may be doing things that are not illegal, but are wrong, he said. Legal lines are drawn, but these lines are not always “right.” Abramoff explained what he sees as a corrupt system. “No lawmaker believes he or she can be bought.” But government is composed of “ordinary, decent people who slowly accommodate themselves to a system that is rife with moral predicaments,” he said. Lobbyists build relationships and gifts from them make a person feel good, he warned. “Always be five steps ahead.”

So can HB2457 be whittled down to something acceptable? Possibly, in my view.

Here’s what I would do.

• Leave Section 84-11(a) intact, including the ban on soliciting or accepting gifts “under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence the legislator or employee in the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action on the legislator’s or employee’s part.”

The ethics commission already has criteria for weighing whether invitations to events are acceptable, including whether the primary benefit is to the state (as in many educational programs) rather than the individual. Let the commission do its job.

• Within those constraints, permit charitable groups to invite elected officials–not all state employees–to their own fundraising events, so long as those invitations do not include multi-day events, travel or lodging, and the value is not unreasonably high. We can quibble over what is “unreasonable,” but certainly an agreement can be reached. And I don’t think the current $25 limit is reasonable. It’s one thing to attend a fundraiser downtown for the Hawaii Food Bank, it’s something quite different to accept a weekend at a neighbor island or mainland resort for an “informational workshop” under a charitable cover. If language can’t be crafted to distinguish the two, then it just won’t work.

• Require prompt reporting, similar to the notices of fundraisers required by the Campaign Spending Commission, whenever the charitable organization extending the invitation employs lobbyists or competes for government grants or contracts. These gifts should be disclosed prior to the date of the event, and disclosure should include the basic who, what, when, where, as well as both the face value of tickets as well as the actual cost to the donor organization.

I think that’s at least a place to start talking. Isn’t that what the legislative process is for?

In a January 18 letter, commission chair Maria Sullivan assured Senate President Shan Tsutsui that the commission agrees with the legal interpretations and proactive advice provided by commission executive director Les Kondo regarding restrictions on gifts and attendance at lobbyist-paid events, which have been drawing criticism from lawmakers.

Sullivan and commissioner Jacqueline Kido had been summoned to a meeting with Senate leaders on January 11 after Kondo advised lawmakers that accepting free tickets to an invitation-only event sponsored by two agriculture industry groups would violate the state’s ethics code. The tickets were valued at $50, while the commission has set a $25 limit for such gifts from lobbyists and others.

In her letter this week, Sullivan said any further discussions should take place in a public meeting rather than behind closed doors.

If you and the other Senators are interested in continuing our discussion, I would welcome that opportunity; however, because one of the Commission’s duties may require us to consider issues as a quasi-judicial body, I think that it is necessary and prudent for any further discussion to be as part of a public Commission meeting. As you know, much of government ethics is premised on public perception. For that reason, I am concerned that we may harm the public’s confidence in the Commission’s ability to perform its statutory responsibilities if there is any suggestion that the private meetings with you and the other Senators have compromised the Commission’s ability to be objective and impartial.

A copy of Sullivan’s letter was also sent to House Speaker Calvin Say.

Sullivan has been chair of the commission since 2008. Her term expires next year.

I got up early, checked the Star-Advertiser.

A headline in the local news section, repeated online, stated incorrectly that a lawsuit seeking to block implementation of the state’s new civil unions’ law was “thrown out.”

The story was correct, unlike the headline. Federal Judge Mike Seabright denied a request for an injunction, but the lawsuit now proceeds. The story notes that it could go to trial late in 2012.

Then there was a front page story about the resignation under pressure of Patty Teruya, who was appointed by Mayor Hannemann in 2006 to serve as special events coordinator. In that capacity, she selected groups to receive public funds to take part in or provide services for various projects.

The case was described by the Honolulu Ethics Commission director as one of the worst he has seen, but the S-A story provided very little “value added” beyond the commission’s own press release and the summary section of its opinion.

Prior heavy lifting on this story was done by activist and independent journalist Carroll Cox, as well as Andrew Walden, Hawaii Free Press. Both deserve credit for pushing beyond the obvious.

Walden put Teruya’s resignation in context yesterday with a collection of background materials.

Cox has been investigating Andrew Jamila Jr. and Patty Teruya for several years. Jamila, appointed by former Mayor Hannemann to the City Planning Commission, also heads the Waimanalo Construction Coalition.

Cox reported last year:

In order for Mr. Jamila to receive a grant from the City’s Leeward Coast Community Benefits Program, Jamila’s organization, the Waimanalo Construction Coalition, had to submit a proposal and have it reviewed by one of two committees whose members are handpicked by Mayor Hannemann. The possibility of a cover up increases because the mayor appointed Ms. Patty Teruya to serve on the selection committee as well as serving as the Mayor’s official Special Events Coordinator. Ms. Teruya not only sits on the selection committee for the City’s Leeward Coast Community Benefits Program and is a city employee, she is also a member of the Waimanalo Construction Coalition. Her official title in documents filed with the Hawaii State Dept. of Consumer Affairs identifies Ms. Teruya as “Secretary”.

I spent a few minutes this morning researching some of these links.

State business registration records confirm that Teruya and Jamila are officers of the nonprofit Waimanalo Construction Coalition.

The organization’s 2008 tax return, the most recent publicly available, lists Teruya as the person in charge of the organization’s financial records, and gives her city office telephone number. According to the tax return, Teruya spent a average of 16 hours a week working for the organization as its secretary. Only Jamila, its president, reported putting in more hours than Teruya.

During 2008, the Waimanalo Construction Coalition reported receiving $143,729 in gifts and grants.

Jamila is also a partner in Waimanalo Construction LLC, a for-profit construction company registered in May 2008 at the same street address as the nonprofit Waimanalo Construction Coalition.

Between July 2010 and May 2011, Waimanalo Construction LLC paid $50,000 to retain The Consilio Group of Pleasanton, California, to lobby in Washington on its behalf, U.S. Senate lobbyist registration records show.

Teruya and Jamila are also listed as general partners in A.P.A.Equipment Rentals and Services, registered to do business at the same Poalima Street address as both the for-profit and nonprofit Waimanalo Construction businesses. The company, formed in September 2003, is delinquent in filing annual reports, state business registration records show.

During 2008, the Waimanalo Construction Coalition reported spending $47,024 for equipment rentals, and another $18,948 on “supplies.” Whether any of these purchases were from the equipment rental business at the same address is not disclosed.

During the 2010 election, Teruya was co-chair of a group called “Hawaiians for Mufi,” which endorsed and campaigned for the former mayor during his unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign.

In any case, there’s obviously a lot more to this than has been reported by Honolulu’s daily newspaper. There are lots of dots, both financial and political, waiting to be connected.

That’s perhaps a good way to start a new year.