Ethics too lax at Legislature

“Following the rules” ordinarily equates to ethical behavior, except where the rules themselves set a ridiculously low standard.

Nowhere is that more evident than at the state Legislature, where a bill that comes in the door can go out with not the slightest resemblance to the original proposal. And that serves as a reminder of just how far legislators fall short of doing the people’s business in a straightforward manner.

The disturbingly common practice, known as “gut and replace,” was applied, for example, in lawmakers’ deliberations over funding for the Hawaii Tourism Authority. In this case, Senate Bill 2224, aiming to cut the agency’s funding by 40 percent, did not make progress when it passed to the House.

So the content of an unrelated measure, House Bill 2010, was gutted. It became the vessel into which was poured the contents of SB 2224 as a replacement. And what makes heads turn over that strategy is that state Sen. Donavan Dela Cruz, the Ways and Means Committee chairman hearing the bill today, has some history with the HTA that, critics rightly assert, puts him in a conflict of interest.

Of course, legislative ethics rules are lax, erecting few barriers to lawmakers’ votes in such instances, only a requirement that they disclose any personal interest. And in any case, Dela Cruz counters that there is no conflict.

Dela Cruz, who voted for the bill’s twin in the Senate, acknowledges a part-time position as a communications director for DTL Hawaii. DTL is an offshoot of WCIT Architecture, a company where Dela Cruz worked while it had secured an HTA contract.

More recently, these companies have competed less successfully for contracts. But Dela Cruz said he voted for HTA’s drastic funding cut not due to that, but because of a recent state audit finding that the agency has not managed its funds well.

In that report, the Office of the State Auditor found that HTA suffers from “lax oversight” and “deficient internal controls.”

Whether or not that criticism is well-founded, the proper way to respond to it is through an orderly process. Gut-and-replace tactics represent another kind of internal control that is equally deficient. The maneuvers resurrect bills that otherwise would not — and often should not — have made the grade.

There’s an endless list of such examples. Another one that surfaced this week is House Bill 1985, initially a proposal that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources provide an annual report to the Legislature detailing the value, current zoning and status of resource-value public lands.

Now it’s been gutted and replaced with a version of a bill to alter the governance of the Mauna Kea summit, a contentious issue as a proposed and controversial telescope project undergoes judicial review.

Again, whether or not one supports this bill on its merits, the process itself defeats the purpose of having open and transparent government. The nonprofit Common Cause Hawaii has advocated against this for years, said its director, Corie Tanida, because it’s confusing and diminishes public trust in government.

Tanida cited other practices that also should be discouraged. One is the prerogative that rests in committee chairs to waive their right to hear a bill. This was exercised on HB 1669, which concerns concessions on public property. Tanida said waivers allowed the bill to advance quickly to the House Finance Committee, with insufficient notice provided for those who might have wanted to testify.

Common Cause and other groups have pushed against such practices, but lawmakers have rebuffed requests to abandon these options. Instead, Tanida added, the organization now holds up politicians to ridicule through its “Rusty Scalpel” award, shaming them for various end-runs on open governance.

Of course, this assumes lawmakers can be shamed. Sadly, that is not a safe bet.