Remember those free season tickets to UH athletic events that top level university administrators and members of the Board of Regents disclosed to the State Ethics Commission?

The issue of free tickets came up in a 1996 Advisory Opinion issued by the commission, and guess what? Those perks may violate provisions of the state’s ethics law.

In Advisory Opinion 96-1, the ethics commission looked at the question of whether the ethics law restricts an agency’s distribution of free tickets. If I recall correctly, this case involved the Stadium Authority, which controls Aloha Stadium.

Historically, the commission found, free tickets had been given to agency officials and some elected officials, with extra tickets provided “for the purpose of having their family members, friends, and guests accompany them without charge to events.”

At the time the commission stepped in, free tickets to all major events were going to some officials of the agency, a former employee, a deputy attorney general assigned to the agency, and the head of a company that provided services under contract.

The commission cited Section 84-13 HRS which “prohibits an employee from using the employee’s official position to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for the employee or for others.”

§84-13 Fair treatment. No legislator or employee shall use or attempt to use the legislator’s or employee’s official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment, for oneself or others; including but not limited to the following:

…

(2) Accepting, receiving, or soliciting compensation or other consideration for the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or responsibilities except as provided by law.

The commission determined that free tickets could not be given out in a way that would create unwarranted privileges or advantages.

The commission reasoned that tickets could be used for marketing and promotional purposes, and could also go to certain public officials as a matter of traditional protocol. However, the commission insisted that there must be a valid state purpose before anyone can be given free tickets, and that the provision of additional tickets for friends or family members would generally not be allowed.

The commission then spelled out guidelines to be followed.

1. Tickets and seating that were controlled by the Agency were state property, and could not be used to grant unwarranted privileges or advantages to Agency officials or others.

2. The distribution of free tickets or passes to any person by the Agency had to serve a valid state purpose.

3. Persons who could receive free tickets or passes included the following:

a. Persons with a work relationship to an event;

b. Government officials on official business related to an event under the jurisdiction of the Agency. Tickets and passes could not be distributed routinely to government officials in the absence of an official business purpose.

c. Persons involved in encouraging organizations to hold events that came under the jurisdiction of the Agency; and

d. A limited class of dignitaries and other persons who fell within traditional protocol rules. Questions as to whether or not persons fell within traditional protocol rules had to be reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis.

4. Additional free tickets or passes for guests could not be distributed to Agency officials or to other government officials unless there was a valid state purpose related to their acceptance and use.

a. It did not serve a valid state purpose to distribute additional free tickets or passes to Agency officials or other government officials so that they could be accompanied to events by a spouse, family members, or other personal guests.

5. Agency officials and other government officials should return unused tickets or passes to the Agency before an event was held, or if that was not possible, as soon as possible after an event, to provide accountability for the use of those tickets or passes and to obviate concerns about the possible misuse of tickets or passes.

6. The Agency should maintain, for each event, a written record of persons or organizations to whom free tickets and passes were distributed to enable review by the Commission of any ethics questions or complaints that could arise in the future. Keeping such a record also comported with normal administrative practices of accountability.

In applying these guidelines, the commission decided that although the agency’s deputy AG could arguably have a legitimate reason to be present, there would not be any valid state purpose in providing additional tickets for those accompanying the deputy.

The agency, believed to be the Stadium Authority, floated many kinds of justifications for its free ticket policies, most of which were rejected by the commission.

I phoned the commission last week and was told this 1996 opinion had not been superseded or reversed, and still reflects the commission’s position on the handling of free tickets.

Where does this leave the university? It looks to me like the distribution of free tickets to officials is going to have to be pared down significantly, and the past practice of providing tickets on request for guests or family members will have to be re-examined.