HONOLULU — A Honolulu City Council measure to prohibit city and county employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists or other third-party sources in relation to their official duties is nearing final approval.
If adopted by the Council, Bill 23, meant to further tighten existing rules that bar city employees from accepting gifts valued at more than $50, also would clarify which gifts may be solicited or accepted.
The measure, introduced in April by Council Chair Tommy Waters and Vice Chair Esther Kia‘aina, replaces Bill 26, a 2022 measure that expired earlier this year after surpassing its two-year deadline without Council passage.
Introduced by Waters, the prior bill materialized in the wake of public corruption scandals at the Honolulu Police Department and city Department of Planning and Permitting.
According to new Bill 23, “The City and County of Honolulu shall maintain the integrity of its officers and employees and assure the public that such officers and employees are above reproach and not subject to influence by city vendors, clients, or others. They, as agents of public purpose, shall faithfully discharge their duties regardless of personal considerations and with no expectation of gift, gratuity, reward, or other thing of value, unless exempted.”
In addition, the measure will amend city laws so that “a city officer or employee shall not solicit, and, unless exempted (under city laws) a city officer or employee shall not accept or receive, either directly or indirectly through a third party, any gift if the city officer or employee knows or has reason to know that it is from a prohibited source.”
“A city officer or employee is deemed to have reason to know that a gift is from a prohibited source if the gift is given, directly or indirectly, from any prohibited source who has appeared before the city officer or employee, or a body of which the city officer or employee is a member, in connection with the prohibited source’s lobbying activities, financial relationship with the city, or both,” the bill states.
As defined, a gift means any gift, whether in the form of money, goods, a service, a loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality or a thing “of value, favor, gratuity, commission, or promise of a gift in such form or any other form” received by a city employee from anyone doing business with the city, the bill states.
Under the bill, “a financial relationship with the city” means a person “receives or may receive funds from the city, including via current city contracts, commercial leases within the city, and city concessions, or receives or may receive income from third parties as a result of the financial relationship” and includes lobbyists.
Certain Bill 23 exemptions could include:
• Political campaign contributions permitted by state law.
• Items of negligible value customarily given to express condolences or sympathy, such as flowers, food items or cards.
• Culturally appropriate lei of no resale value given at a celebration.
• Awards, plaques, certificates, mementos, novelties, culturally significant items or similar nonmonetary items of no resale value given in recognition of or in gratitude for the recipient city officer’s or employee’s civic, charitable, political, professional or public service.
During the Council’s Committee on Executive Management meeting Wednesday, Laurie Wong-Nowinski, the Ethics Commission’s assistant executive director and legal counsel, testified in support of Bill 23.
She noted the bill mirrors the City Charter and current laws “by prohibiting gifts, if it appears that the gift is intended to reward or influence the city employee.”
“But it also adds a provision to prohibit gifts, if it appears that the gift is being used to curry favor or privilege,” she said, noting the bill’s addition of a “prohibited source section” is common in other jurisdictions, including at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
“Most importantly, this law reduces the gift cap from $200 per year down to $50 per year per source,” said Wong-Nowinski, noting this law would add “an extra layer of protection, which I call the belts-and-suspenders approach, whereas the current version only has the belt.”
She said the new law would ask whether a gift is from “a prohibited source.”
“That helps to clarify it for city employees, and that will take out a lot of the questions,” she added. “Second, if the answer is ‘yes’ (and) it is from a prohibited source, it’s excluded. If not, the next question to ask … is, Does it appear that the gift is intended to reward, influence or secure extra privilege?”
At the meeting, no one from the Council or public spoke on the measure.
In written testimony, though, O‘ahu resident Natalie Iwasa criticized Bill 23, particularly involving gifts worth no more than $50 per year.
“Many of these exemptions are reasonable if the intent is to limit gifts to $50 per year from a single source. The bill’s current form, however, is not clear about the one-year restriction,” she wrote. “The list of exemptions in effect creates a much higher annual threshold than the $50. Perhaps an overall annual threshold should be included in the bill, exemptions notwithstanding.”
Iwasa requested the Council discuss the inclusion of “or may receive income from third parties as a result of the financial relationship” within the bill.
“Does this mean that a plumber who is contracted to do a small repair for a business that received a city grant is not allowed to give any gifts under this bill?” she asked. “What period does this financial relationship cover? Are grantees prohibited from giving gifts a year after the final grant report has been given to the city? Are lessees of city property barred from giving gifts two years after their leases have expired?”
The Council did not address Iwasa’s concerns at the meeting.
Ultimately, Bill 23 was reported out for possible third-reading adoption at the full Council’s meeting on Wednesday.
