Advertiser reporter Gordon Pang has a good follow-up story this morning on the Rod Tam ethics case.
I have to admit that I’m still having trouble with the math. According to the Ethics Commission investigation, Tam received at least $14,805 in excess or improper reimbursements for meals not actually related to city business, but is only paying back $11,700, or just 79% of the total. Even with the $2,000 fine assessed by the commission, Tam is still paying back less than he took from the city, and is doing so over three years and without paying interest or legally admitting to any violations.
In the case of an elected official, the Honolulu Ethics Commission doesn’t have much enforcement power except for the power to assess a civil fine and the power of investigation and disclosure, both of which it wielded in this case.
According to the City Charter:
Section 11-106. Penalties and Disciplinary Action for Violations—
The failure to comply with or any violation of the standards of conduct established by this article of the charter or by ordinance shall be grounds for impeachment of elected officers and for the removal from office or from employment of all other officers and employees. The appointing authority may, upon the recommendation of the ethics commission, reprimand, put on probation, demote, suspend or discharge an employee found to have violated the standards of conduct established by this article of the charter or by ordinance. The ethics commission may also impose civil fines established by ordinance for violations of the standards of conduct committed by elected and appointed officers and employees of the city with significant discretionary or fiscal power as determined by ordinance.
Although an employee can be fired, in the case of a ethical lapses by elected official, it appears that impeachment is the only other available remedy. Impeachment can be triggered by a petition signed by at least 1,000 registered voters in the council member’s district.
Again, from the City Charter:
Section 12-202. Impeachment of a Councilmember —
Any councilmember may be impeached for malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance in office or for interference with the performance of the duties of any officer or employee in any executive agency of the city government. The supreme court of the state shall constitute a board of impeachment in any proceeding for the removal of a councilmember who may be charged on any of the foregoing grounds. The charges shall be set forth in writing in a petition for impeachment signed by not less than one thousand duly registered voters of the council district for the removal of a councilmember, and said signatures shall be necessary only for the purpose of filing the petition. The petition having once been filed, hearings shall be held on all such charges. The board of impeachment may appoint a master and invest the master with the power to investigate the charge and report thereon to the board. If the board sustains the charge, the councilmember shall be deemed removed from office. (Reso. 83-357; 1992 General Election Charter Amendment Question Nos. 14 and 32A(4))
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When we foul up on taxes we get hammered for the full amount plus penalties and interest.
But when a councilman takes funds he’s not entitled to he gets a discount on the reinbursement and a payment plan, too?
I’ll sign the impeachment petition!
For whatever it’s worth, the Ethics Commission report’s conclusion on page 17 states that its staff “would have sought repayment from Councilmember staff in an amount of about $14,500 based on its investigation. However, a settlement reflects that there are difficulties in the presentation of any case and there is a significant savings to the city in avoiding a contested case hearing. It is reasonable under the circumstances for Councilmember Tam (to) pay the city a total (of) $13,700, including $2,000 as a civil fine.”
It’s also worth noting that much of the TV reporting on this fiasco has been very fast and loose with the facts.
For example, reports have repeatedly stated that “the Ethics Commission found Tam improperly spent $22,000 on meals.” That’s just not true. The commission found that he spent $22,000 on meals, but did not conclude that all the spending was improper. In fact, the commission report says its investigators “questioned approximately $10,000 in meals because they appeared not directly related to a specific Council issue or councilmember duty.” The Advertiser reiterated this in today’s report.
Another TV report stated on Sunday that “Earlier this month, Tam said mathematical errors and poor bookkeeping caused him to overcharge the city $22,000 for meals.”
Did Tam really say that? That’s doubtful, since he hasn’t been accused of “overcharging” $22,000.
Likewise, at least one breathless rip-and-read report this morning stated that Tam “continued to improperly spend taxpayer money on meals while he was under investigation, according to the Honolulu Advertiser.”
But today’s Advertiser story made no such allegation. It reported that Tam continued to spend on meals and other items, and implicitly questioned some spending by examining rules, but made no direct allegation that the spending was improper. Although some or all of it very well may have been improper, that’s not what was reported, and not what any officials have publicly alleged. And, of course, no allegations related to any of this have been proven in a contested case hearing or in court, and Tam hasn’t admitted wrongdoing.
In fact, the Advertiser reported today that Council Chairman Todd Apo “said he thinks Tam’s charges for meals and other items tied to international relations and economic development are valid expenses of a council member,” though it’s not clear whether he was specifically commenting on Tam’s most recent spending or the spending questioned by the commission.
Tam’s in plenty of hot water, and it certainly appears justified. But taxpayers deserve clear and accurate reporting as the wheels continue to grind.
The real story now is whether the Attorney General will prosecute. But nobody seems to be asking that question.
where’s that bastion of law and order,Peter Carlisle?
Perhaps I am missing something but how is this not theft by deception?