Change in Board of Ethics reactionary — and that’s OK

What better time for new life than the new year?

In December, the Hawaii County Council resuscitated a proposal that appeared headed for the heap pile when it reversed its course and postponed a decision on Bill 101, which aims to enlarge and, more importantly, diversify the Board of Ethics.

A token board, perhaps, because it can’t discipline or punish.

The board handles ethics complaints from residents about public officials and weighs in whether county employees can accept certain outside contracts, among other duties. Should it see a misstep it feels warrants discipline, it can recommend the council take action, but it can’t do anything itself.

Though, no fault of the board — that’s the way the system is set up.

But token, too, perhaps, because the one time the board could have taken impactful action was after complaints surfaced that Mayor Billy Kenoi had improperly used his county issued credit card, and it punted.

Perhaps that wasn’t the board’s fault, either.

At the same time, the Attorney General’s Office had stepped in and said it would investigate the free-spending matter and in May, the Ethics Board deferred taking action until the AG inquiry wrapped up.

The AG’s office swings a mightier stick, after all.

Then in August, feeling the blowback, the board said it would take up the matter again at its next meeting but, kicker of all kickers, the three-member board hasn’t met again since — meaning the most severe possible ethics violation that came before the board has been twisting in the voggy wind.

Why no meeting?

The members haven’t all been able to get together to form a quorum — the minimum amount of people needed to conduct government business — since their decision to take it up again. Because it’s running with three members, all three are needed to conduct business. Simply put, it didn’t fit their schedules.

There’s enough bad taste here to need a chaser.

Here’s why:

Board members are appointed by the mayor, and confirmed by the County Council. So the mayor’s hand-picked members didn’t take action against the man who selected them, and haven’t taken up any business since. That’s as succinctly as you can describe what some see as a problem.

We’re not saying anything underhanded is going on. What we’re saying is that bare-bones description of the Ethic’s Board’s last year is untidy enough to say something should be cleaned up for the sake of appearances.

That’s where Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille’s proposal comes in.

Bill 101, in its original form, would put a charter amendment on the ballot asking voter approval to expand the Board of Ethics from five to nine members, with one member from each council district. Each County Council member would submit two names to the mayor, who would pick one from each district and send the nomination to the council for confirmation.

Before the council resurrected the bill from its death bed, a council committee had recommended quashing it almost unanimously.

Some argue that filling volunteer seats is difficult because few people are willing to serve. That’s understandable, so maybe the numbers can be whittled down. Volume isn’t as important as diversification, in this case, splitting up control to prevent the appearance that the board would take up matters except against its appointer.

Yet, some council members maintain the bill is an overreaction to the current situation.

“I think it’s reactionary,” Puna Councilman Dan Paleka told West Hawaii Today. “The Ethics (Board) has been functioning for a long time, and very well.”

We’d argue reaction is just what’s needed. Reaction is often why legislation is created, just the way the IRS closes loopholes in the tax code each year and why professional sports leagues continuously incorporate new rules. They’re reacting to something that happened to their bank account or on the field.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the Ethics Board cancelled its monthly meeting again because the three-person quorum couldn’t make it fit. Two new appointees are on the way, the county has said, meaning the two extra members will allow a little wiggle room should other members not show up.

Perhaps the most embarrassing component of the entire pCard saga — and make no mistake it’s embarrassing any time hostess bar, mayor and county money are in the same sentence — has been the lack of reaction. The mayor was asked (warned?) not to use his pCard for personal use repeatedly before the story broke and the investigations started. Let that sink in.

Then the Ethics Board did what they did, which was, well …

So we’d be all for putting the issue of changing the board to the voters. Especially considering, according to County Clerk Stewart Maeda, adding a charter amendment question on the ballot wouldn’t add to the cost of the election.

Reactionary?

In the very least, it’s better than nothing.