HONOLULU — The Honolulu Ethics Commission on Wednesday lauded what members say is a long-awaited measure addressing gift-giving for city and county employees.
Crafted with the panel’s assistance, Bill 23 is supposed to tighten existing rules that bar city workers from accepting gifts valued in excess of $50, also clarifying which gifts may be solicited or accepted.
The measure, introduced by City Council Chair Tommy Waters and Vice Chair Esther Kia‘aina, is meant to prohibit city employees from soliciting, accepting or receiving gifts from lobbyists or other third-party sources in relation to their official duties. The council formally adopted the bill June 5.
It replaces Bill 26, a similar 2022 measure that expired earlier this year after surpassing its two-year deadline without council passage. The 2022 bill, introduced by Waters, materialized in the wake of public corruption scandals at the Honolulu Police Department and city Department of Planning and Permitting.
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.
At Wednesday’s commission meeting, Laurie Wong-Nowinski, the panel’s assistant executive director and legal counsel, said Bill 23 was transmitted to the mayor for his signature, allowing to it become law by a June 28 deadline.
Bill 23 offers a “belts-and- suspenders approach,” she said.
“Previously, we only had the belt, but now we’ve added the suspenders,” she said, noting the latter “specifically identifies certain automatically prohibited sources, the first ones being lobbyists.”
“And that was the subject of prior cases … where the Commission had formerly advised upon settlement agreements,” she said, which included the Romy Cachola case. In 2014, the Ethics Commission imposed a $50,000 fine on Cachola, a former state representative and council member, for multiple alleged violations of city ethics laws.
The panel said Cachola collected over $9,000 from the city for expenses related to his SUV, even though his political campaign fund was already reimbursing him for the same expenses. He also allegedly accepted dozens of prohibited gifts — including meals at high-end restaurants and golf outings — from lobbyists who had matters before the council.
Cachola said he was unfairly targeted by the commission’s former executive director, Charles Totto. Later, Cachola chose to settle rather than incur more than $125,000 in legal fees to defend himself.
According to Wong-Nowinski, the new law would also target “prohibited sources” including those “who receive funding from the city” like city contractors, concessionaires, vendors and grant recipients.
“All those folks are automatically prohibited, which means that city officers and employees cannot receive gifts from them,” she said. “So that was a huge win for the commission.”
Others opposed Bill 23
Kaimuki resident Tim Garry said he’s already urged the mayor and city managing director to veto the measure: “Just based on past history of some of our city councilmen, and the violations that occurred, I was for no gifts at all.”
On a separate item, the Ethics Commission voted to direct its staff to investigate possible ethics concerns brought by Hawai‘i Kai resident Natalie Iwasa over the Honolulu City Council’s ability to vote on its own salaries as part of its annual legislative budget.
Iwasa’s concerns allude to the city Salary Commission’s controversial 64 percent salary increase last year meant for the council. In 2023, eight members of the council were awarded a $44,400 pay bump to $113,304, up from $68,904. Three rejected their pay raises.
In written testimony, Iwasa said, “Council members have a direct financial interest in voting on their own salaries because they stand to gain financially, so by voting on your own salary increases, it is a financial conflict of interest but council members can disclose that and then vote.”
“Is the reason for a conflict of interest that they would be voting on an item that relates only to their salaries, whereas the budget bill includes many items, including their budgets? And if that’s the case, why is there different treatment between the two,” she asked.
The commission expects its staff to report back over these potential conflict of interest questions.
