Back on July 12, I noted that UH Manoa Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw had not yet filed the annual gift disclosure required by the state ethics law. The disclosure statement was due on June 30.

Hinshaw’s statement was eventually received, signed at dated July 14, two weeks after the filing deadline. It was submitted via email and the copy online was not timestamped on receipt.

Hinshaw discloses several gifts, including the usual array of athletic tickets, travel expenses for one meeting of the Western Athletic Conference board of directors, and travel costs for an appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The only other gift listed is a 6 foot carpet with a UH Manoa Athletics logo for her office, courtesy of Chevron USA, valued at $1,895.

Absent is any accounting of expenditures from so-called “protocol accounts” provided through the UH Foundation, which can be expended at the discretion of the chancellor.

This is an ongoing issue that is yet to be resolved.

A number of administrators throughout the UH system are provided these slush funds via the foundation, including Hinshaw.

I believe the only administrators to disclose these as gifts are UH President M.R.C. Greenwood, former president David McClain, and Engineering Dean Peter Crouch.

In 2004, an opinion by the State Ethics Commission considered the question of protocol funds controlled by then-UH President Evan Dobelle. The commission opinion was in response to a complaint brought by Rep. Mark Takai.

Takai’s complaint came after the foundation claimed it was not subject to the state’s open records law because it is legally an independent, private entity. In that case, Takai argued, any money the foundation provides for the official use of the president (and, presumably, other officials) is a gift from an outside party and must be reported as such. I summarized the issues in an entry last year.

The commission sided with Takai, and found that the foundation money was subject to disclosure even if intended to further the official functions of the university.

The commission opinion cited the legislative history of the provision requiring public disclosure of certain gifts.

From this legislative history, it is clear that the purpose of the gifts disclosure law is to “promote public confidence” in state government as well as in public officials. The purpose of the gifts disclosure law is to “monitor and prevent any abuse” that might arise with respect to gifts. The Conference Committee Report specifically referred to the public’s right “to know” of certain gifts that public officials receive, in order to take action against any potential abuse.

However, at that time the commission noted that the university’s general counsel had taken the opposite position, putting the top UH lawyer at odds with the commission’s opinion.

I wonder whether similar advice is still being given to officials other than the president, which might account for why all those with protocol accounts at their disposal are not disclosing them as gifts.

The money involved can be significant. Crouch, dean of the College of Engineering, reports a total of $12,714 spent from the University of Hawaii Foundation Enrichment Account. I don’t think any other deans filed gift disclosures.