I like to see Civil Beat holding public officials accountable, but sometimes they over reach.
I think that’s what happened whenCivil Beat raised the conflict of interest issue because Maui Rep. Angus McKelvey voted on a bill for a moratorium on nonjudicial foreclosures after receiving a foreclosure notice on a Lahaina home he shares with his mother.
Here’s much of the substance of the story:
McKelvey voted in favor of a bill calling for a moratorium on nonjudicial foreclosures, House Bill 894, in committee on Feb. 2 and as a member of House Judiciary that same day. HB 894 was approved by voice vote on second reading in the full House Feb. 8.
On Feb. 10, the full House passed the measure on third reading with six Republicans voting “yes with reservations” and another Republican voting “no.” All Democrats voted “yes” except for McKelvey, who told Civil Beat he was visiting the men’s room at the time of the vote.
“Had (HB 894) been on the floor, I would have asked about a conflict,” he told Civil Beat. “It was an omission on my part when the bill passed second reading. It passed by me so fast. It was not intentional.”
McKelvey says he now recognizes the appearance of conflict of interest on voting on that bill and, possibly, others, even though the moratorium bill wouldn’t have applied to him because it only applies to foreclosures after the bill is signed into law. He says he will seek House Speaker Calvin Say’s opinion on whether he should recuse himself on future votes.
Subheads used in the Civil Beat story include “Conflict of Interest?” and “Disclosure Rules”.
It’s clear, reading between the lines, that the question of conflict of interest was raised by Civil Beat.
So was there really a conflict? Start with the provision in the state ethics law which defines conflicts of interest (Section 84-14 HRS).
Two provisions apply to legislators.
(c) No legislator or employee shall assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity before any state or county agency for a contingent compensation in any transaction involving the State.
(d) No legislator or employee shall assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity for a fee or other compensation to secure passage of a bill or to obtain a contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal in which he has participated or will participate as a legislator or employee, nor shall he assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity for a fee or other compensation on such bill, contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal before the legislature or agency of which he is an employee or legislator.
Neither of those provisions appear to apply to the situation McKelvey found himself in.
There is a separate provision for “fair treatment,” which prohibits legislators from using their position “to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment, for oneself or others.”
However, the statute goes on to state:
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit a legislator from introducing bills and resolutions, serving on committees or from making statements or taking action in the exercise of the legislator’s legislative functions. Every legislator shall file a full and complete public disclosure of the nature and extent of the interest or transaction which the legislator believes may be affected by legislative action.
So what types of conflicts must be reported and disclosed under internal House rules?
Check rule 60.5 on page 52.
If the member has a conflict of interest in legislation, the member shall disclose to the presiding officer (the committee chair or the Speaker, depending on where the vote is taking place) the conflict of interest prior to voting on that legislation. For the purposes of this rule, a “conflict of interest” means that the legislation affects the member’s direct personal, familial, or financial interest except if the member, or the member’s relative, is part of a class of people affected by the legislation. [emphasis added]
Think about it. All legislators pay taxes and will be affected by tax bills, and are also expected to consider, debate, and eventually vote on tax measures. It’s illogical to consider this to be a conflict just because legislators might find themselves in that class of “taxpayers.”
If a bill singled out a specific corporation or small group of companies or individuals for a tax break, a legislator with a financial interest in those companies might appear to have a conflict. That’s a different story.
But there probably isn’t any public policy issue that has impacted more people across the country than foreclosures, and nonjudicial foreclosures are at the leading edge of questionable practices. It would be extremely hard to construct a case that any legislator supported foreclosure legislation primarily due to their own private interests.
In my view, Civil Beat also mischaracterized McKelvey’s role in the committee committee which considered the foreclosure bill in question.
CB reports:
McKelvey also sits on the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee, where he gets first crack at housing foreclosure bills.
Later, in the section headed, “Conflict of Interest?,” the article comments:
There is also a second House bill that calls for a moratorium on nonjudicial foreclosures, HB 582, which was introduced by three other Democrats. It has been deferred in McKelvey’s Consumer Protection committee, but there has been no vote.
I was very surprised, especially by the possessive used in the second reference to “McKelvey’s Consumer Protection committee.” It sent me running to the committee lineup to confirm that McKelvey chairs another committee and sits as a member of CPC, where chairman Bob Herkes was also probably surprised to see it referred to as McKelvey’s committee.
If you’re around the legislature at all, you know that the committee chairman wields substantial power to control the committee and its agenda. As one of 14 members of the committee, in addition to the chair and vice-chair, it would be unusual for McKelvey to have much control over the legislation at all. Herkes gets first crack at bills referred to his committee, and it was unfair to imply that McKelvey somehow personally “gets first crack” because he’s on the committee.
Allegations of “conflict of interest” are serious and need to be made carefully and deliberately. In this case, at least in my view, Civil Beat implied the existence of a conflict that wasn’t supported by its reporting.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CB does some interesting stuff but they do frequently over reach, toot their own horn far too much, and unnecessarily pollute their site with attitude that’s more irritating than informing.
But here’s a question. Now that they’ve made access to most of their site free, and continue to eschew advertising, how much money do they lose every month and how long will that last?
I agree with this. The self-promotion and the tone in general takes away from some good reporting. Civilbeat did not invent journalism, but from their editorial tone, you might wonder.
CB hires such junior “reporters” this is about what you would expect. The owner should use some of his billions and raise the ante and hire professional journalists. I wonder when CB will tell the world how their on line experiment is going? Pierre should run it like a business instead of the obvious hobby it is. With billions at hand, are there not bigger fish to fry? I just don’t get what they are trying to do.
Here is what is upsetting about this articlee by CB: there are actual, not nebulously perceived, conflicts of interest each legislative session.
The most egregious in recent memory was in 2008. Former House rep Roland Sagum (Kaua’i) introduced a bill (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/lists/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB3286) that would have permitted the mining of sand, rock, gravel, and other materials used in construction within agricultural districts.
This bill, if passed, would have benefitted Sagum’s then employer Kikiola Land Company, Ltd (see testimony).
During House and Senate hearings Sagum actually testified (in person) in support of the measure.
Additionally, when the Senate held (not deferred) the measure, Sagum made attempts behind closed doors to have the Senate reconsider the measure for passage.
Interestingly, Sagum’s employment with Kikiola ended in the same year (according to his campaign website).
Then there is the simple, generally reliable “smell test”. By that measure, this stinks. IMHO, the public is tired of “whoops, my bad” explanations from legislators whose actions fail the smell test.
Civil Beat has a presence in Hawaii because it can afford to hire more personnel than other independent online news.
It can afford to station a reporter in Honolulu Hale and State Capitol. Civil Beat should be applauded for this. When a person hangs around a place, you learn a few things and you put the politicians on alert.
Having said that, Civil Beat must be examined and second-guessed in their work. I’ve read some of their articles that contained superficial and inaccurate information. It is still definitely better than the Star Advertiser by any measure.
It’s easier to be judgmental when you’re wealthy and can operate outside the same economic system as the rest of us. Legislators (and journalists) are also citizens.
I agree CB overreached in their insinuations against McKelvey. Angus is in a broad class of people affected by nonjudicial foreclosures. I am NOT. But I WANT these issues to be decided by people who “have skin in the game.”
Did he do anything improper, like steer the bill in a direction which can be best explained by a narrow personal interest?
I disagree with the characterization of the Civil Beat reporters as semi-amateurs. Chad Blair and Micheal Levine provide a lot of indepth coverage of the Legislature and I am glad for the opportunity to access their reporting.
As for the Star-Advertiser, I do not fault theri Capitol reporters for the superficial coverage. They are grossly understaffed and spread thin, but I continue to be impressed by the quality of their “reportage” on issues where I have some close knowledge. When you include the blog maintained by DePledge and Reyes, you get access to some good quality information.
I wish the “paper” could/would spend more on legislative reporting, but I don’t blame the reporters.
The S-A editorials, on the other hand, are often written from an annoying pseudo-“common sense,” omniscient “City Fathers” type of perspective without much knowledge of WTH is going on.
Again, not the reporters’ fault.
Ian, I always appreciate your reflections on Civil Beat’s journalism.
In this case, however, I think you’ve got it wrong.
We have a lawmaker active in the foreclosure issue who told us that he feels he was intentionally singled out for foreclosure, as if to muzzle him. That seems pretty dramatic and worth our attention.
After being approached by Civil Beat about what was happening in his life, he told us that there was an appearance of conflict and that he will handle the issue more transparently in the future. That tells me he thought the issue was worth serious consideration.
As far as the substance of the story, I hope your readers take a look before taking your word.
The headline wasn’t about a conflict of interest: It was a factual report about how people making our laws face some of the same trials many in the public do. It read: “Lawmaker Caught Up In Foreclosure Mess”
The secondary headline read: “A leading advocate for cleaning up Hawaii laws on mortgage foreclosures, Rep. Angus McKelvey, finds himself the target of foreclosure.”
Again, nothing about conflict of interest.
Of course the reporter had to ask the question about his votes. We do raise questions with our reporting and we did with this one.
But the subject of the story agreed that the question was worthy of consideration. Should we not report that?
Civil Beat did not blow the appearance of conflict out of proportion, as I think is obvious from the structure of the story and the approach to the headline.
I think this kind of reporting that explores how lawmakers’ personal lives affect their actions and interests in the Legislature is valuable, and especially worthwhile when there’s not a black or white answer. Those are easy. This kind of story is hard, for McKelvey and for a reporter.
CB makes some good points, but seems too often to be grasping, seeking attention or inflating stories to boost readership. Background and perspective (too) often seem lacking. Key points missed in accusing McKelvey of conflict of interest is as Kolea pointed out “narrow” self-interest, and at the expense of whom?
Ian, thanks for the careful parsing of the laws and for your comparison of the laws with McKelvey’s actions. That’s good journalism.
On the issue of perceived bias, perhaps Civil Beat could make a note of the good that advertising can do if done right. We find that other newspapers in Hawaii are funded through advertising primarily by developers. Since someday all newspapers, with Civil Beat as the current exemplar, will no longer be hard copy, it might be possible and desirable to have mostly national or international sources of advertisers, or to leave the choice of advertiser to an entity like Google. That would bring a little bit of objectivity to the reporting and a little bit of integrity to the editorials (and to the political endorsements). Perhaps Civil Beat could lead the way in this way as they lead in other ways by allowing something like Goodle ads. Having a newspaper as the hobby of a billionaire might have a whiff of Hearst to it, even when the billionaire maintains a decent stance from what is written. In a day and age of journalistic mass unemployment, the sword of Damocles hangs over the head of a staff who might fear to tread on topics sensitive to their “boss”. Having a few ads from non-players in local politics can promote the image of the newspaper and the confidence of its staff.
I just went back and looked at the last two days worth of papers……..no developer ads. So Big Ben, just beacause you say its so doesn’t make it that way. Having worked in the newspaper industry a few years ago, I think “big developers” account for very little ad revenue. Stick to what you know.
I want my legislator or councilmember to vote on things that are important to me, even if they may have an appearance of a conflict. We cannot opt out of things in real life and our representatives shouldn’t either. Take a stand. That’s why we voted for you in the first place.