Category Archives: Legislature

More on residency requirements for appointees

It turns out that the residency requirement goes back a long way, in various forms.

I’m not sure when the residency provision was made part of the State Constitution, but it could have come with Statehood. I was able to find the “Manual on Constitutional Provisions” prepared for the 1950 Constitutional Convention, which lays out the qualifications for serving in various offices in states across the country. At that time, it seems, residency requirements were the norm. The rundown of requirements in the different states at that time begins on page 162.

And both the 1968 and 1978 Constitutional Conventions appear to have left that particular provision in place, although with amendments.

And the residency requirements appears to have spread out broadly from the Hawaii constitution into various laws and rules, some of which have been successfully challenged in court over time.

The constitutional provision that derailed the Labor Department nominee doesn’t only impact department heads, but the heads of other offices as well.

And a reader emailed me to suggest that residency requirements are still imposed on certain board and commission appointments, as well as certain professional and vocational licenses, which certainly deserves a closer look to confirm (which I won’t attempt today).

I did try to check on the challenges to residency requirements, which seem to site either the right to travel between the states, and the right to equal treatment. In either case, to survive the challenges, the restrictions must either stem from a compelling state interest, or be “rationally related” to a legitimate government interest, depending on the level of legal scrutiny required.

The 1977, then Gov. George Ariyoshi backed a new law imposing a 1-year residency requirement for all public employment. Ariyoshi viewed it as a necessary move to slow population growth. It was immediately challenged in federal court and found to be unconstitutional. The case is Nehring v. Ariyoshi. Click on the link to read the decision.

A 1977 article in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly described the legal issues in Hawaii at that time regarding residency (“Selected Constitutional Issues Related to Growth Management in the State of Hawaii“).

But that wasn’t the end of it. In 2005, the Hawaii Chapter of the ACLU had to go to court again “to stop enforcement of Section 78- 1(c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which barred out-of-state residents from applying for government jobs.”

The court again struck down the law as unconstitutional (Walsh v City and County of Honolulu).

So what is the government interest, whether “compelling” or not, that justifies residency requirements for department heads nominated by the governor and confirmed by the Senate? Can someone articulate it?

Throwback Thursday meets Christmas

What happens when Christmas lands on Throwback Thursday?

You wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Then you dredge up a bunch of things from Christmas Past.

Oh, click on any of the photos and you’ll either get a slightly larger version of the photo, or a link to a collection, or perhaps a document.

History buffs may be most interested in the Carey Miller letter from December 1942, and the Waikiki Surf Club photos and party sign-up sheet from 1948.

Here goes.

1940

Photo used in a Christmas card sent by my parents, John and Helen Lind, in 1940. Walking Ms. Kiki on Kahala Beach.

1940

1941

Carey D. Miller, excerpt from a Christmas letter dated December 1942, describing the events of the prior year’s holiday season, which was disrupted by the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

“Christmas comes and goes, dinner parties are called off and many work all day long. Each night we gather in our little blackout room and listen anxiously to the war news.”

1948

Waikiki Surf Club Christmas Party and 1st Annual Diamond Head Race, with competitors paddling from Waikiki to Diamond Head and back. If you want to see more photos from these events, click here. Or use this link to see the hand written sign-up sheet for the party. Lots of names from the history of Hawaii surfing can be found here.

Paddle & Party

1958

A family portrait. Christmas 1958.

[text]

1971

Silent vigil against the Vietnam War, outside the entrance to the Schofield Jungle Training Area. Christmas Eve, 1971.

1971

2004

Celebrating on Christmas Eve at my parents’ home in Kahala. Note my mother in the background, wearing her own santa hat, which she donned each year for quite a few years.

At parents' home in Kahala

2007

Christmas Eve. It was to be the last time we celebrated Christmas with my sister, Bonnie, and both of my parents at their Kahala home.

Our final Christmas

2008

My dad was taken to Queen’s Hospital after a fall at home just before Thanksgiving in 2008, and later moved to the nursing home where he spent the last two years of his life. We tried to maintain some “normalcy” by celebrating Christmas Eve with my mother, despite his absence.

Bonnie, Meda, and Helen

State Ethics Commission staff recommend closing lobbyist disclosure loopholes

One of the matters considered by the State Ethics Commission at its meeting this past week was a recap of their interpretations of the provision for lobbyist registration and reporting (“State Ethics Commission Staff Recommendation Regarding Registration And Reporting Requirements For Lobbyists And Organizations That Engage In Lobbying Activities“).

Hawaii law requires lobbyists to register with the commission and report on their expenditures if they meet a combination of conditions: (a) they are paid to lobby; and either (b) spend more than five hours in any month lobbying, or (c) spend more than $750 in a reporting period. Whether a person is paid as a professional lobbyist, or lobbies as part of their regular paid employment, doesn’t matter. If you’re paid, you meet the first condition.

Volunteer lobbyists, such as those who represent community groups or nonprofit organizations at the legislature, are not required to lobby.

However, organizations that rely on volunteer lobbyists, or engage in grassroots lobbying (urging members of the public to communicate with legislators about legislation), would be required to register and report their lobbying costs if the organization hits either the 5-hours or $750 threshold.

The commission presented an example:

A grassroots organization does not employ a lobbyist, but the organization spends $1,000 for newspaper and television ads urging the public to contact their legislators about a bill. The organization pays for the ads using contributions received from its members for its lobbying activities. The organization must file a lobbying report. The report must include the organization’s advertising expenditures and contributions received by the organization for the purpose of lobbying.

The state lobbyist law exempts anyone who has special knowledge about an issue and is “occasionally” requested to appear at the legislature by a member, and administrative agency, or even a lobbyist.

The ethics staff are recommending that this exemption be narrowly construed.

The Commission has determined that it construes this exemption narrowly and believes that it applies to persons who provide expert information to the legislature, but does not apply to lobbyists or other persons who attempt to advocate for a position, encourage a particular result, or otherwise influence legislative action. Persons who provide information to the legislature or attempt to “educate” the legislature for the purpose of advocating for a position are not exempt from the requirements of the Lobbyists Law.

Another staff interpretation helps to close a reporting loophole. Lobbyists are required to publicly disclose their expenditures, but the statute exempts “the expenses of preparing written testimony and exhibits for a hearing before the legislature or an administrative agency.”

This has been used by some lobbyists or organizations to avoid reporting substantial costs. The commission notes, for example, “it appears that some lobbyists or organizations that employ lobbyists do not report lobbying expenses relating to the research, drafting, and submission of written testimony and exhibits for a hearing.”

This is not the intent of the law, according to the staff recommendation. Instead, the exemption is only for “administrative expenses incurred to prepare and submit written testimony.” Essentially, clerical services to prepare copies and actual copying costs are what they’re talking about.

On the other hand, according to the staff recommendation, “compensation paid to a lobbyist for researching or drafting testimony or exhibits for a hearing must be reported as a lobbying expenditure.”

The staff recommendation also clarifies that in-kind or non monetary contributions received by an organization engaged in grassroots lobbying must be reported if they meet the other reporting conditions.

The commission gave this example:

A grassroots organization organizes its members to rally the public to urge legislators to vote against a bill. One of the members owns a sign company and donates 50 signs for members to use at the rally. The signs are considered a contribution and the organization must report the name of the person who contributed the signs and the fair market value of the signs on the organization’s lobbying report.

Under current state law, responsibility for reporting of lobbying expenditures is split between the organization that employs a lobbyist, and the lobbyist. Money spent by a lobbyist but reimbursed by the client should be reported by the client organization, while lobbyists are required to disclose their out of pocket expenditures which are not reimbursed.

The commission staff have now proposed closing another loophole in this disclosure provision.

In some cases, organizations provide lump sum payments to lobbyists to cover the lobbyists’ fees and all lobbying expenses. The lobbyists uses some of this amount to pay for lobbying expenses and retain the rest as fees for their lobbying services. Where these payments are not itemized or attributed as payments by the organizations for specific expenses, staff believes the lobbyists must report the lobbying expenses on their individual lobbying reports. Staff recommends the Commission adopt this interpretation of the Lobbyists Law’s reporting requirement.

Another loophole involves travel costs. When calculating whether an organization or a lobbyist expend more than $750 in a reporting period, travel costs do not have to be counted.

But the commission staff note that once a person or organization hits the threshold for registering or reporting expenses, those reports must include all expenditures, including any travel costs. This is a sea change and, if approved, will result in more complete disclosure.

Now I’ve got to backtrack and determine what action, if any, the commission itself took on these recommendations.

Hawaii Supreme Court opinion appears to undercut full public access to government records

Thanks to Honolulu attorney Rebecca Copeland’s “Record on Appeal” blog for calling my attention to a recent Hawaii Supreme Court case with unsettling implications for public access to government documents (“County has no legal duty to maintain records“).

Here’s her mini-summary of the case:

The case involved property on the Big Island. Molfino purchased the property intending to subdivide it. Molfino’s search of the County of Hawaii’s records revealed that the property had never been granted a subdivision for more than two lots. He sought a determination from the planning director, Yuen, for the approval of a seven-lot subdivision, but was denied. He then sold the property since he was unable to develop it. After he sold the property, Yuen approved the new owner a seven-lot subdivision. Later, Molfino learned that the property had, in fact, been approved for a six lot subdivision, but the record of the approval was not in the subdivision records when Molfino reviewed them on several occasions before he sold the property. He sued the County for negligence in failing to maintain proper records.

Here’s a slightly longer version lifted from the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case.

Molfino wanted to create a subdivision on the property. He visited the Planning Department and made copies of the property’s TMK file. Based on the property’s zoning classification, Molfino
understood that his property might consist of only two pre- existing lots. Allegedly missing from the TMK file at that time was an April 2000 letter from a realtor to the former Planning Director, which requested a pre-existing lot determination, and the former Planning Director’s May 2000 response letter, which stated that the property consisted of six pre-existing lots.

Mollify sued the county after he sold the property and only later learned of the key documents that had been missing from the file. In his lawsuit, he alleged the county “breached a legal duty to use reasonable care in maintaining the TMK file, and that this breach caused Molfino monetary damages.”

The lawsuit pointed to county rules, and later to the sate public records law, Chapter 92F HRS, and argued the county had an obligation to make all records available to the public.

The rules state, in part:

All public records shall be available for inspection by any person during established office hours unless public inspection of such records is in violation of any other state, federal, or county law….

Similarly, Chapter 92F provides:

All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.

The county argued that although the law required public inspection, it did not require the county to “maintain” any specific records.

The circuit court agreed and found in the county’s favor.

It ruled, in part:

4. If a duty and liability is to be imposed upon the County to maintain Planning Department records with unerring accuracy, it should be imposed by a legislative body. A legislative body is the proper entity to determine whether [to spend] the County’s scarce resources on such a duty and is capable of providing additional economic resources which may be necessary;

5. The Planning Department owes no duty to keep its records accurate and complete for persons who seek information regarding the degree to which real property may be capable of subdivision.

The case was appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision, and then on to the Supreme Court.

The Hawaii Supreme Court also affirmed the decision in the county’s favor.

From their opinion:

Molfino’s sole support for his claim that the County owed him a legal duty to maintain accurate Planning Department records was Rule 1-8, which requires only that “[a]ll public records shall be available for inspection by any person,” and contains no express duty to maintain these records in “accurate, relevant, timely, and complete” condition.

The bottom line for the court apparently was that the public records law, known as the Uniform Information Practices Act (or UIPA), requires disclosure of public records and prohibits disclosure of confidential personal records, but does not explicitly require government agencies to keep complete records. As a result, the government does not face any liability for damage caused by missing documents which may, as in this case, have caused monetary damages.

The court took this position even though the Hawaii County Planning Director had confirmed that their policy is to retain all records as public records essentially forever.

This is worrisome, because documents can go missing as a result of routine misfiling or temporary removal from a particular file during a specific internal use, but they can also go missing as a result of deliberate efforts to conceal information from the public. Without a duty to maintain those records, and some means of holding agency officials and employees accountable, the public can’t trust that requests for public records will be honestly complied with.

In the absence of a legal duty to maintain public records in good order, the public can’t trust that requests to inspect public records will provide a true look at the agency’s actions. It necessarily weakens the public’s right to know.

Perhaps there’s some separate legal angle, not mentioned in this opinion, that can provide accountability without liability for damages of the type that were at issue in this case. Perhaps others will know.

The Supreme Court seemed to recognize that the lack of a statute requiring records to be kept and maintained in good order may be problematic, but took the position that this requires a legislative remedy and not a judicially-imposed fix.

So it looks to me like another item to go onto a legislative wish-list of things that would strengthen the public’s right to know.