An anonymous reader pointed over to Twitter for this tweet from the Honolulu Ethics Commission two days ago (Friday, February 19).
Okay. That would have been a perfect reasonable warning if…and it’s a very big IF…if there weren’t a specific procedure established by ordinance that the commission (and the city clerk) should be following. It’s the law. And it’s part of the law specifically dealing with ethics and establishing additional standards of conduct for city officers and employees.
And there’s nothing in the law that provides for “alerting your appointing authority” if someone fails to file their required financial disclosure.
Even if this notice had been sent out on February 2nd or 3rd, shortly after the February 1 deadline had passed (rather than nearly three weeks later), it still wouldn’t have complied with the law.
Here’s what the law requires (if you want to look it up yourself, it’s found in Section 3-8.4(f)(1)(A), Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, which provides:
Late Filing. Any officer or employee of the city whose required financial disclosure is not received by the ethics commission or the city clerk, whichever is applicable, by the close of business on the deadline date specified in subsection (b), shall be given a notice of violation of the provisions of this section by the ethics commission or the city clerk, whichever is applicable. The notice shall state that the city officer or employee has 10 days from receipt of the notice in which to file the required financial disclosure or be subject to the penalties provided in this paragraph and Section 3-8.5. Any city officer or employee, who has received this notice and fails to file the required disclosure within 10 days of receipt of the notice, shall be subject to a civil fine according to the following schedule: $100.00 for the first late filing; $200.00 for the second late filing; and thereafter, for each additional late filing, the fine imposed for the previous late filing plus $200.00. Any penalty or fine shall be imposed after an opportunity for a hearing conducted by the ethics commission under HRS Chapter 91.
That’s pretty clear. If the deadline is missed, either the city clerk or the ethics commission “shall” send a notice of violation stating that the person has 10 days from the receipt of the notice to file the late report. And, if they still don’t respond, the “shall be subject to a civil fine….”
Only at that time does the procedure established by law provide for “an opportunity” for a ethics commission hearing.
Sure. I get it. Sending out notices of violation to multiple tardy officials or employees entails some work. It’s certainly easier if violations can be worked out informally. And that would be fine, in the absence of a legally required procedure.
Here’s what really upsets me. I’m sure that at some point in the past, when ethics standards were being proposed and considered, a group of public spirited citizens of Honolulu worked hard to lobby for passage of strong standards of conduct, and to build some degree of accountability into them, to provide for enforcement. Accountability that the public, by law, should have a right to expect will be provided by those in authority.
I’ve been there in the trenches pushing for similar public interest reforms in the past, efforts which often can take years to see come to fruition. And then, years later, when the public has moved on to other issues, someone in authority decides to just look the other way and avoid their responsibilities spelled out in law. After all, it’s just that vague “public” that’s affected, and likely no one is going to complain.
Unless I’m missing something, those who missed the February 1 deadline (unfortunately including Mayor Blangiardi) should have received a notice of violation. It would have been a token slap on the wrist, because it would provide another ten days to comply. But it would at least be a symbolic bit of accountability. Something to have to answer for in the future.
I wonder if anyone on the City Council will put themselves in the uncomfortable position of asking why the procedure spelled out in ordinance hasn’t been followed?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can I just get a friendly reminder the next time I neglect to pay my taxes? Or my car registration? Or my water bill and sewer fee? Or …
Look at the timestamp. The tweet went out just a few minutes AFTER Blangiardi filed his disclosure.
This is the Ethics Comm shaped by Caldwell gutting the previous Ethics Comm b/c it had the temerity to look into his Inaugural Ball.
Lucky us COVID made an Inaugural Ball a non-starter for Blangiardi.
How many others have not reported?
Ian seems to have a bone to pick with the Mayor. Hyper critical of a non-issue IMO. The guy was late to fill out a fairly superficial form.
That “superficial form” included information that is quite pertinent to an issue pending before the City Council and upon which the Mayor may take official action, to wit, a special interest bill that would provide substantial financial benefits to certain Sand Island property owners/lessees, including the Mayor’s wife, whose property interest had not been disclosed prior to submission of the late superficial form.
There’s a reason for this stuff.
Do try to keep up.
I appreciate Ian digging into this issue and others like it. These disclosures provide important information that the public should be aware of. Based on the Civil Beat story, it seems there’s more going on than just a late filing.
In addition, the fact that the Honolulu Ethics Commission did not issue a notice of violation makes me wonder if they were trying to not rock the boat, so to speak, especially given the results of the prior commission when they dug into Caldwell’s first inaugural luau.
Caldwell’s only legacies: a neutered Ethics Commission and a miserable RailFail.
And a still-crumbling Natatorium.
If Blangiardi wilfully ignores this requirement just days into his administration, what else will he ignore?
Blangiardi kept a very low bar for ethical behavior and story coverage when running the TV news stations. He’s likely to continue that as mayor.
There is a lack of integrity on this issue; not filing as required and not informing said party as required.
Remember when Blangiardi dismissed his fraudulent straw man bank loan scheme as being an old error of youth where he was the victim, even though he plead guilty and had to declare bankruptcy? Also that he learned from that error?
Wonder if Blangiardi has a better excuse now.
There is a flaw in the ordinance as written. It does not state a deadline or timeframe for when the Ethics Commission or City Clerk has to issue the notice of violation, which then starts the 10-day clock. It just states they shall issue a violation notice, but not when.
A plain reading would indicate they must issue the notice of violation when the deadline for filing the disclosure has passed. Kind of like how you get a ticket if you keep on going after the light has turned red. But you’re right, maybe we need to set specific deadlines for watchdogs to do their jobs.
I’m not sure including deadlines to provide enforcement would actually help. How would it be written — issue a notice “as soon as practical, but no later than x days after violation”? What would the consequences be? The EC should monitor the forms and anyone who hasn’t filed by the deadline should get a notice. It seems pretty easy to me.