Don’t believe everything you’re told. That’s been one of our standard “rules” for years.
If you’re not satisfied when some public official or bureaucrat tells you what the policy is, be sure to quickly ask to see a copy. Or, better yet, dig out the policy yourself.
The lesson was reinforced yesterday when I got a call from Donna Wong of Hawaii’s Thousand Friends.
HTF is one of four environmental groups appealing a partial zoning variance that would allow Kyo-ya to proceed with its proposed oceanfront highrise next to the Moana Surfrider Hotel.
Donna had a question stemming from a meeting of Honolulu’s Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday. She said two members of the board announced they had possible conflicts, and that they would be submitting written statements to the Honolulu Ethics Commission for a ruling.
Donna said she later asked the deputy corporation counsel assigned to the board whether she could get a copy of the disclosures that were being submitted for review. She was told that the documents were not public, but that she would be told when the Ethics Commission made its ruling.
While we talked, I was busy opening up the Ethics Commission web site, and clicking through to the section on “Laws,” which lists out the relevant sections of the City Charter and related ordinances.
What do you know! The deputy corp counsel gave incorrect questionable advice. Contrary to what Donna was told, the City Charter seems very clear the disclosure statement is a matter of public record. [Paragraph amended in deference to the reader using the name, “Slow down.”]
Section 11-103. Disclosure of Interest —
Any elected or appointed officer or employee who possesses or who acquires such interests as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with the public interest shall make full disclosure in writing to such person’s appointing authority or to the council, in the case of a member of the council, and to the ethics commission, at any time such conflict becomes apparent.[1] Such disclosure statements shall be made a matter of public record and be filed with the city clerk. Any member of the council who knows he or she has a personal or private interest, direct or indirect, in any proposal before the council, shall disclose such interest in writing to the council. Such disclosure shall be made a matter of public record prior to the taking of any vote on such proposal. (Reso. 83-357) [emphasis added]
As you can see, this charter provision has been in place for some 28 years. It seems to me there’s absolutely no excuse for any city official, much less someone on the corporation counsel staff, to provide blatantly incorrect information to the public. It’s not like this is disputed terrain. It’s very settled after three decades in place.
I assume Hawaii’s Thousand Friends will be back at the city bright and early on Monday to request copies of those disclosure statements.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kudos to you Ian! Lots of us are following this case and appreciate your kokua!
Hi Ian,
Actually, looking at the law, I think Corp Counsel correctly called this one.
As I read it, any statement submitted to the Ethics Commission (EC) for an ruling would be confidential under ROH 3-6.2(j) and 3-6.5(c) and the Rules of Procedure of the Ethics Commission (ROPEC) 4.13 (available on the Ethic Commission website under “laws” link you provided above). Therefore, as Corp Counsel said, a board member’s statement to EC is confidential, not public.
The resulting EC ruling would be publicly available, “with such deletions as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of the identity of the persons involved.” ROPEC 4.12. Corp Counsel told Ms. Wong she would be told when EC made it’s ruling.
If EC determines a board member has a conflict, ROPEC 9.1 and RCH Sec. 11-103 require written disclosure be filed with the City Clerk and the Ethics Commission and this disclosure document is available to the public as you noted above. But this wasn’t the document Ms. Wong was asking Corp Counsel about.
We all make mistakes, but I don’t think Corp Counsel did in this case. Ms. Wong was asking Corp Counsel if she could get copies of the submission to EC – which under the ROH and rules governing EC clearly she cannot. It is only the EC opinion and written disclosures filed with the City Clerk to which Ms. Wong and the public would have access.
A hui ho.
So, exactly what differentiates a “statement” from a “disclosure?”
It seems you are saying that such a document is a “disclosure” only when/if the EC rules that there is a conflict. Further, it seems your analysis is based upon ordinance and rule, yet both must defer to the charter where the intent of the charter is clear.
What am I missing here?
ROH 3-6.5(e), referring back to the charter provision, requires: “The disclosures of conflicts of interests as provided in Revised Charter Section 11-103 shall be made matters of public record at any time that such conflict becomes apparent.”
I believe the charter section you’re referencing has to do with the disclosure of known conflicts. It seems to me, from your description, that the members are seeking a ruling from the ethics commission on whether or not a conflict does exist. If a conflict does exist, then they would have to file the public disclosure.
Once again, it’s not necessarily as simple as it may appear on the surface.
“The deputy corp counsel gave incorrect advice.”
Well, maybe. Or maybe not. Yet a firm conclusion is immediately drawn and a public accusation is made.