Honolulu Ethics Commission chairman Lex Smith resigned earlier this year because his increased involvement in Managing Director Kirk Caldwell’s mayoral campaign would have violated legal restrictions on political activity by commission members.

New members have now been appointed to the commission to fill Smith’s seat and other vacancies. Among the new members is Charles Gall, a partner in the law firm of Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda, the same firm where Smith is a partner.

While I have no doubt about Gall’s personal and professional qualifications to serve on the commission, there are obviously some concerns raised by this appointment.

As noted here earlier, the senior partner in the law firm has hosted fundraisers for Mayor Mufi Hannemann and for Caldwell, according to campaign records.

The firm is also a major recipient of city non-bid contracts for legal services. Earlier, I had identified some $1.5 million in fees going to Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda in recent years.

Gall, in his Appointee Personal Information Form, lists the law firm as his employer, and estimates its city contracts at “approximately $936,000” over the past five years.

The information form then asks: “Do you or does any member of your immediate family hold office or own stock in any firm?” Gall answers: Yes.

Next question: “Does the firm do business with the City and County of Honolulu?” Answer: No.

From this answer, I have to assume that Gall doesn’t consider that, as a partner in the firm of Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda, he holds an “office” in the firm or owns stock in it? Perhaps, technically, a law partnership doesn’t issue stock. But wouldn’t a partnership interest be a similar ownership interest?

Another question follows: “Do you foresee any possible conflict between your present work, financial investments, business transactions or any other activity which would be incompatible with the proper discharge of your official duties or hinder you from effectively carrying out the duties for which you have been appointed?” Answer: No.

I assume that Gall honestly can’t foresee any possible conflict, and it is likely that he can separate his interests from the cases he is asked to consider, as attorneys must. But his position may leave the public with reasonable doubts.

Perhaps its just me, but I can see conflicts facing a partner in a law firm with a substantial financial interest in contracts for professional services awarded on a non-bid basis by the city administration, if and when ethics questions arise that might reflect badly on the administration or in which the administration has a direct interest.

And I also have to wonder why, with so many attorneys in this city, we have another partner from the same law firm appointed to the Ethics Commission? Isn’t diversity a value in a position like this?

In any case, I recognize that these are not timely questions, since the new appointees have already been approved by the council. But they’re still nagging questions that at least deserve to be noted.