Ethics panel’s media policy must be voided

Don’t be fooled. The Honolulu Ethics Commission’s restrictive new media policy is not designed to foster more accurate reporting, or even to rein in a single executive director. It exists to control the flow of public information, and in doing so, diminishes a fundamental principle of a democratic society and reflects a profound disregard for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

That a commission charged with advancing ethical conduct in city government would act so ignobly against the public trust is all the more outrageous. It is not enough to register mere outrage at this misguided policy change, which was approved over the objection of the board chairwoman, who voted against it. This decision to effectively muzzle commission members, a long-time executive director and other staff members must be overturned.

If the three of five commissioners who voted to approve the new rules won’t reverse course on their own, Mayor Kirk Caldwell should step in with advice encouraging the commission to act on behalf of the public in the most transparent and responsive possible manner — a standard this new policy obviously fails.

All three — Riki May Amano, who drafted it, Allene Suemori and Victoria Marks — are Caldwell appointees and this shift in commission policy therefore reflects poorly on his administration. That it was endorsed by city Corporation Counsel Donna Leong, at odds with Ethics Commission Executive Director Chuck Totto, also is troubling.

Commission Chairwoman Katy Chen expressed the sole laudable "no" vote; Vice Chairman Michael Lilly was not at the meeting and therefore did not vote.

Among the most egregious elements of the new policy is the dictate that "under no circumstances shall any media communication engage in media activities to air concerns/grievances regarding the operations of the Ethics Commission, or interpret or comment on any decisions or advisory opinions."

This directive is absurd, and, if it stands, will seriously impair the commission’s ability to fulfill its mandate to improve and maintain public confidence in government.

Among the commission’s many duties are advising city employees and officials, as well as the general public, about perceived or potential conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, misuse of city resources, misuse of official position, political activities and other issues that call into question whether government officials and employees are acting in an ethical manner.

One of the ways the commission shares this information is by issuing opinions and recommendations that are broadly disseminated by the media. This new directive pretends that reports issued by the commission are so crystal clear that they generate no legitimate media queries, no need for clarification and interpretation, no serious questions to examine and explain their scope, consequences and impact.

But every report generates questions, even those that are comprehensive and well-written. To serve the public interest, the commissioners and key staff should be available to explain the findings. If the Honolulu Ethics Commission as a whole wants more clarity around how that media outreach process works, it should engage in a direct dialogue with the executive director, not bring down the hammer with an overarching policy that stifles the flow of public information and erodes the effectiveness of the commission itself.

It’s telling that the three commissioners who voted for this new policy are all retired judges, previously insulated on the bench, perhaps, from the public give-and-take that comes with serving on such an important and high-profile board as the Honolulu Ethics Commission.

In a technological era that makes it possible to share information instantaneously and for people to engage and participate in government as never before, Hawaii officials have the ability to be more transparent, accountable and responsive than ever before. They should embrace that duty on behalf of the public they serve, not shirk it.