I expected to get some reaction to Sunday’s entry about the State Ethics Commission’s firing of Dan Mollway, but I didn’t think it would include being accused of “hypocritical censorious self-righteousness” (at least that’s what the dictionary said about Warren’s fancy word), or of “making stuff up”, or pretending to “understand it all.”
Are the comments reacting to what I actually wrote? I thought I was contributing some background grounded in my own direct experiences, as well as some additional considerations that I thought would be useful in trying to make sense of the situation.
I also suggested that the absence of past news reporting on the commission and its internal politics and operations becomes noticeable in hindsight, since we find ourselves without much basis for understanding the issues behind the latest situation. This seems undeniable.
I just reread the entry, and have to wonder where all the venom comes from? Did I stumble over something sacred?
Disagree? Fine. Then contribute your own context, history, observations, experience.
But you don’t help elevate the discussion with flippant attacks.
Was I making stuff up, Brah? What stuff? Why do you think it’s “made up”? Explain, please.
Warren–help me out by identifying the “self-righteousness”. Specifics, not broad brush.
And, yes, I did pick up copies of written testimony from the commission public meetings. There may be some items missing, I don’t know. I did leave out Gordon Trimble’s earlier complaint, which was attached to his testimony.
Some testimony says the commission has been too secret and needs to make more information public. Other testimony says the commission disclosed too much information and violated Mollway’s rights. Potential procedural issues were flagged.
I didn’t find the testimony very helpful in trying to get behind the surface to a better understanding of what’s been happening within the commission office that led to the apparent staff revolt. Am I wrong?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Off your topic, but it was interesting that all of today’s SA coverage on Richardson was done by former Tiser staff.
Something tells me you won’t hear back from these folks, if at all. That’s the nature of these sort of “ad hominem” attacks. Fortunately, they’re usually confined to the rants you find in the comments section of online news stories. Some of them did seem to take cover from Larry Geller’s post so maybe he can expand on his remarks. Otherwise, I’d hate to think this might become the norm. The absence of shrill invective is one of the reasons I follow your blog and other similar ones.
Ian, I wouldn’t worry too much about the sniping, which really doesn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion. I thought your post was sound, especially given the paucity of information available. You have personally observed shortcomings on the part of the commission and I, and I’m sure many others, appreciate the additional perspective.
All together now Choir…..what should we sing next? Oh, and Former Tiser staffer, wasn’t it interesting that I was watching the Hawaii News Now the other night and all the former KGMB staffers did the entire newscast?? yawn…
I will say this Ian, you deserve credit for posting the rants that don’t “elevate” your discussion. Disagreement comes in many forms….
Not that interesting. Former Tiser staff have all been given plum beats and positions, while former SB staff have mostly been demoted and marginalized. Many are out on stress leave, they’re being bullied so harshly by SA managers.
But this has nothing to do with Ian’s observations about governmental ethics, does it?
Okay, isn’t that enough on this issue? There’s disagreement. We understand.
The Ethics Commission dismissal is troubling several ways. Of course, there is discomfort in not knowing why they did this in the first place, but details of employment problems need not come out in public. One of the problems is that they released enough information to potentially be damaging, possibly including protected medical information (under HIPAA). If that is true, it demonstrates an unfamiliarity with HR practice right there. Also, they need not have done any of this, since the ED serves at will. A letter and a gold watch would have done the trick, unless the dismissal was for some illegal reason.
Note that my questions don’t have anything to do with whether dismisal was called for or not. The Commisson said there has been no wrongdoing, he got top-notch reviews right up to 2009, the absence problem was apparently (from information available) cured… but they won’t say why he is being dismissed in any convincing way. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason, nor do they have to give it to us, but it does raise suspicions. Perhaps there is in fact no good reason. The fact that this is now a public controversy is because the Commissioners made it so.
Then there is the whole absence thing and (if I understand the testimony) the need to get prior approval for absences including medical, which could be a violation of law right there, as was pointed out to the Commission by his attorney, I think (I’d have to review my recording and see if I have that). Still, Mollway complied. Then on Jan 13 they asked him to resign or retire. Only after he declined did they open an investigation. Again, this is as far as I can piece together the timeline. He was put on administrative leave Feb 10, no legislative package was introduced this session, and the ED was not available to answer questions etc. In otherwords, we were all deprived of his services.
If indeed the issue were absences, it would seem to have already been resolved probably around the end of 2009.
Tomorrow (Wed 6/23) the Commission is to hold another meeting, and they will recognize two departing commissioners whose terms are up. It’s the first item on the agenda. I don’t see anything about appreciating a total of 28 years of Mollway’s service to the Commission icluding around 24 as its ED. That is also strange, if the reason for his dismissal is absences, with medical causes included (though we should not know about that).
Regardless of testimony and remarks about Dan Mollway’s performance, the Commission has kept him on and given him glowing reviews.
So you see why I believe things don’t add up. I am not trying to evaluate his performance, but rather the performance of a commission whose function is critical to monitoring the behavior of our public servants.
Also, as I wrote over on my own blog, this may be an opportunity to review what education and resources we give to boards, councils and commissions so that they can work better and within the law. That’s important, because the taxpayers will have to cover any settlements when they are sued, though I understand that’s rare.
I’ve worked for a lot of newspapers (5) and I’ve always felt that many editorials display too much knee-jerk and too little careful reflection. And that applies to the “bigs” like the NYT and WSJ, too. The urge to take a stand, and quickly, exacts a price — often unfairly outfitting people with black hats and white hats.
Off topic, but speaking of third rails in local politics, why has this most civilized of on line forums had nothing, as far as I can tell, about HB 444, particularly with all the reports on the Hawaii Business Roundtable’s questionable pro-veto letter to Lingle and the continuing walking back from that position by numerous members? Next to rail — right now even more than that — there isn’t anything else that comes close to stirring public debate, so the silence in this corner is rather odd. You have to at least give Civil Beat and Chad Blair kudos for breaking the HBR story, no?
Ian’s pique is to be welcomed. If his conscience has been pricked, so much the better.
Ian’s loose talk about ethics invites criticism. It didn’t occur to me to comment on his post on the proceedings of the state Ethics Commission until I heard him on Hawaii Public Radio earlier in the day. He was sounding an alarm on the state’s various regulated industries and how complaints about them are (his words) “cloaked in secrecy.” His concern was that complaints about these industries should be made public. I agree: The complaints should be public information. The RICO can provide a valuable service to consumers but only if the information it gathers is accessible to us. So far, he and I are in agreement. Here is where we part company: Ian seems curiously untroubled by the secrecy that has cloaked the investigation and proceedings of the state Ethics Commission. Why is he alarmed by the secrecy practiced by one state agency and not another? The other being the state Ethics Commission. Why does he want to give the Ethics Commission a pass on a crucial ethical issue? Because Dan Mollway, the commission’s long-serving executive director, was put through the ordeal of a months-long investigation that included complaints about him by anonymous staff members, what, we may legitimately ask, were those complaints–and who exactly made them? Ian objects to my use of a word that sent him to his dictionary. So, let me ask in localese: Eh, Ian, how come you talkin’ from bot’ sides of your mout’?
One additional comment about the Ethics Commission. Complaints investigations are confidential and many never see the light of day after being filed since they may not result in a clear decision. I’m not sure this level of secrecy serves the public good. How to get any change through the Legislature would be the challenge.