Ethics agency needs more autonomy

Ethical oversight is one of those good-government functions that benefits from having some distance placed between the overseer and the behavior under scrutiny. The position of the Honolulu Ethics Commission within city government seems far less than ideal, and some of the consequences of that structure may be coming to light now.

The executive director of the city Ethics Commission has sounded some alarm bells about a budget clash that’s erupted between his office and the Department of Corporation Counsel Donna Leong’s office.

Under the City Charter, the commission is attached to Corporation Counsel "for administrative purposes only." Presumably the administration of the budget is part of that purpose, but Chuck Totto, the ethics commission’s executive director and legal counsel, has been chafing under that supervision.

This is a difficult, land-mine-ridden territory to navigate, given that budgetary constraints can help define what jobs the office takes on. The commission and its staff should be accountable for rational budget practices and ought to be able to justify requests for funds.

It does seem likely, however, that the commission’s burdens will ramp up with the advent of development associated with construction of the city’s rail project, the largest public works project in Hawaii’s history. The deal-making that can go on with plans for rail stops along the 20-mile alignment could potentially present countless ethical quandaries.

The bottom line is that the city taxpayer needs a robust Ethics Commission in place at this point to provide the necessary oversight and public disclosure of any problems that arise.

At a recent commission meeting, Totto alleged that Leong’s office has been trying to undermine his agency’s operations through management of his budget and questions about hiring plans.

In a written statement, Leong has rebuffed the general accusation that she is undercutting Totto, though when contacted by the Star-Advertiser she declined to answer his charges point-by-point.

The commission is due to meet again Nov. 18 to finalize its budget for the coming fiscal year. At that time Leong should respond in detail.

The public deserves to know the extent to which the commission will be able to operate independently.

Part of the whole problem is structural, and rectifying that issue is a longer-term project. Corporation Counsel advises city agencies and maintains communications with the privacy that usually comes with attorney-client privilege.

That does not mesh comfortably with the mission of ethics oversight, which needs to be done with greater public disclosure.

"The Ethics Commission will not be treated any differently than other city agencies in terms of justifying its budget or providing information on its workload and resources," Leong said in her statement.

But that’s the problem.

The Ethics Commission is different, and efforts should be made to insert a few more degrees of separation between it and the rest of city government.

This is not an easy task. The staff is hired by the seven commissioners, who are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council — all of whom can come under commission scrutiny at some point.

The state Ethics Commission is a bit more politically insulated: Its members are appointed from a list compiled by the Judicial Selection Committee.

A bill seeking to create something similar for all county ethics panels, House Bill 468, was introduced in 2011 and died in committee the following year. That idea should be revisited, although it would need to be ultimately introduced by Council and placed on the ballot as a City Charter amendment.

That may be a little late to improve the panel’s autonomy for the transit-oriented development issues soon to emerge. But in the long-term interest of strengthening ethics oversight of city government, reinvigorating this issue would be a worthwhile idea.