In Wednesday’s post, I pointed out that the Land Use Research Foundation, a self-described advocacy group that lobbies on behalf of large landowners and developers, reported spending just one-half of 1% of its budget on lobbying-related costs (“Developers’ group reports spending minuscule amount on lobbying“). I commented that this is simply not credible.

A reader responded with the following:

Ian this might sound a bit strange but a lot of what LURF does may not meet the definition of lobbying. My understanding is that lobbying involves communication with an individual or agency to influence pending legislation or agency action. But if you talk to guys like LURF they will tell you that their main purpose is to provide information, often times at the request of a legislative body. Yes that information does come from their particular perspective, and will be colored by the interest of the organization, but it does not meet the definition of “lobbying”. Its a thin line but it is none the less a line.

That’s precisely the explanation given to the State Ethics Commission by David Arakawa, LURF executive director.

The problem is that that belief is wrong, as the commission spelled out in its findings in the LURF/Arakawa matter. The exemption referred to is far narrower, and according to the commission does not apply to experts who are advocating a position.

The exemption is found in HRS section 97-2(e)(6):

(e) This chapter shall not apply to:

(6) Any person who possesses special skills and knowledge relevant to certain areas of legislation, whose skills and knowledge may be helpful to the legislative and executive branches of state government, and who makes an occasional appearance at the request of the legislature or an administrative agency, or the lobbyist even though receiving reimbursement or other payment from the legislature or administrative agency or the lobbyist for the appearance.

The exemption applies only to those “experts” making “an occasional appearance,” and contemplates that these experts may be invited by the legislature of by a lobbyist.

It shouldn’t be difficult to see the exemption is not meant to apply to any lobbyist who, almost by definition, also has more knowledge of their subject matter than the average person, and could use their legislative contacts to assure that they were “invited” to appear to make their pitch. Such an interpretation would exempt all the good lobbyists, who could claim that they simply “educate” rather than “advocate,” as if their point of view is absolutely and “objectively” the truth.

But here’s how the commission construes this exemption.

The Commission construes this provision as providing an exemption for those who provide expert information to the legislature, at the request of the legislature, but who do not attempt to advocate for a position or otherwise influence legislative action. Those who provide information to the legislature, or attempt to educate the legislature, while also advocating for a position are not exempt from the requirements of the Lobbyists Law.

I’m sure it’s correct to say that others also mistakingly believe their lobbying activities are shielded from disclosure or regulation.

It would be best for anyone in this situation to seek the advice of the ethics commission in order to avoid the public embarrassment that LURF and Arakawa have experience.

Last week, I wrote about the resolution of a State Ethics Commission investigation into lobbying by the Land Use Research Foundation (“Ethics violations by developers’ group adds to questions facing DLNR nominee“).

The commission found that Arakawa had lobbied on behalf of LURF from 2008 through 2014, and for most of that time was not registered as a lobbyist. During three years falling within the applicable statute of limitations, Arakawa and LURF each failed to file nine expenditure reports disclosing what was spent, if anything, on lobbying.

Arakawa and LURF were each fined $2,000 for their violations.

I returned to the topic in today’s Hawaii Monitor column, published by Civil Beat (“Hawaii Monitor: The Case of a Wayward Land Use Lobbyist“).

Read the column if you have access to CB.

The point of the column is that the State Ethics Commission action has raised additional questions.

For a starter, those who lobby the Honolulu City Council or administration are also required to register and lobbyists and file an annual report, although reporting requirements are minimal.

You can check the list of registered lobbyists by clicking this link and scrolling to the bottom of the page.

I’ll save you some work. Arakawa has not registered and doesn’t appear on these lists. Under the city’s lobbyist ordinance, LURF is not required to register or disclose. That responsibility rests with Arakawa, their lobbyist.

I don’t know that the Honolulu Ethics Commission is looking at the issue. The commission’s executive director, Chuck Totto, said he couldn’t comment on any ongoing investigation. But I suspect they would have been quite quite interested in the state commission’s findings, and would be using those to guide their own inquiry

But back to LURF. Under scrutiny from the State Ethics Commission, the organization filed a series of reports which are supposed to detail their lobbying-related expenditures.

Keep in mind that LURF describes itself as an advocacy group representing and lobbying for the interests of the big landowners and developers that are chief among its members.

So here’s a bit of what I found when I examined those reports more closely. I took the calendar year 2013, which was the latest full year covered by the disclosures. Remember that these numbers are for their lobbying at the legislature, any efforts they make to urge others to contact legislators for or against specific legislation, and also to any lobbying on administrative rule making by state departments or agencies.

…LURF’s total reported lobbying expenditures during 2013 further seem equally unbelievable. The total for all reported lobbying costs, including Arakawa’s salary, came to just $1,897.19, which was just one-half of 1 percent of the group’s $342,715 in total expenses during the year, according to its tax filing.

Les Kondo, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, said his office does not have the resources to audit lobbyist disclosure reports. It receives lobbyist reports, checks for essential information, and then files them without evaluation.

“We look to make sure that the basic information requested is provided, such as contact information, and who you are lobbying for,” Kondo said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “But in terms of doing an audit, to make sure the numbers are accurate? No.”

I don’t find LURF’s reported lobbying expenses credible.

If you’re around the legislative scene at all, we would be interested in your comments.