Advertiser columnist Dave Shapiro takes House Speaker Calvin Say to task today for sponsoring the House version of a bill that benefited a business he is associated with.
The bill that passed was not Say’s bill, but rather a Senate version, SB764. It aided commercial lessees in lease rent renegotiations with large landowners. Say is a board member of one such company.
The underlying problem is that most of the conflict of interest provisions of the State Ethics Law do not apply to legislators. So legally speaking, Say did not have any conflict of interest related to this bill.
The state’s “code of ethics” is found in Chapter 84 HRS, and the conflict of interests provisions are found in Section 84-14, which provides in part.
§84-14 Conflicts of interests. (a) No employee shall take any official action directly affecting:
(1) A business or other undertaking in which he has a substantial financial interest; or(2) A private undertaking in which he is engaged as legal counsel, advisor, consultant, representative, or other agency capacity.
This primary provision applies only to state employees and not to legislators.
Other provisions so bar legislators from representing private parties for pay in a variety of circumstances.
Section 84-14(d) comes closes but in the end doesn’t fit the Speaker Say’s situation.
(d) No legislator or employee shall assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity for a fee or other compensation to secure passage of a bill or to obtain a contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal in which he has participated or will participate as a legislator or employee, nor shall he assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity for a fee or other compensation on such bill, contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal before the legislature or agency of which he is an employee or legislator.
Although Say’s annual financial disclosure reports that he is compensated by the company, it seems clear that this is a fee for serving as a director and not a fee paid for him to represent the company at the legislature.
It seems to me that it is somewhat unfair to continue criticizing the speaker for introducing this particular bill, which isn’t even the bill passed into law. The problem here is that the state’s ethics law has not kept pace with the modern ethics codes adopted in Congress and in some other states. That’s an area where the legislature and legislative leaders deserve to be put on the hot seat.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The underlying problem is that Shapiro is habitually fast and loose with the facts, frequently wrong, does no actual reporting, and is more concerned with creating controversy by throwing cheap shots and insults than with informing anyone about anything. It’s an act that’s become very tedious and disappointing.
Ian,
Say introduced the House bill, which the Senate adopted word-for-word. You make it sound as though Say had nothing to do with the bill that passed, which isn’t the case.
Jim Kelly
Editor
Pacific Business News
Ian may cut Speaker too much slack on which bill passed but Jim overstates his “word-for-word” case.
The Senate bill, as introduced, contained additional, pro-lessee language not found in the House version. See page 3, line 19, to page 4, line 13: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/SB764_.pdf
As passed, the Senate bill contained additional language regarding master lessees and sublesees that was not in the House bill as introduced. See page 4, line 14, to page 5, line 22: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/SB764_CD1_.pdf
Finally, note that both the House and Senate versions include a “savings” clauses which means that the bill has prospective application only. If expiration/renegotiation of Warabeya’s Mapunapuna lease with HRPT is imminent, then maybe there’s something here. If not, then the benefit to Speaker is much less clear-cut.
I think both have valid points but Jim’s is, shall we say, a tad overstated.