A state senator’s recent intervention on behalf of a private company involved in a city billing dispute has drawn attention to a little-known change made by the Legislature this year to the state ethics code.

Lawmakers exempted themselves from a key section of the code — one prohibiting state employees from using their positions to gain unfair advantages for themselves or others.

But one legislator involved in the negotiations on the bill near the end of the session said the intent was to address concerns about people serving on state task forces, not to revise anything dealing with how the ethics code applies to lawmakers.

"The scope of any exemption affecting legislators was not intended to be changed," said Rep. Gil Keith-Agaran, a member of the House-Senate conference committee that negotiated the final form of HB 2175, which became Act 208 with the governor’s signature in July.

"It’s a shame," said JoAnn Maruoka, a member of the legislative committee of the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, which will push to reverse the legislators’ exemption in the upcoming session. "Let’s be generous and say it’s an unintended consequence."

The practical effect of the change was underscored at a Hawaii State Ethics Commission meeting last week.

Les Kondo, the commission’s executive director, referred board members to a recent Star-Advertiser story about Sen. Josh Green’s intervention in August on behalf of Automated HealthCare Solutions in a six-figure billing dispute with the city.

The Florida-based company provides billing software to physicians who dispense prescription drugs directly to patients, purchases the medication claims from the doctors, and bills insurers and government agencies for the drugs, mostly in workers’ compensation cases.

The city is disputing numerous medication claims from Automated HealthCare, citing inflated prices and other issues.

Writing to the city on legislative letterhead, Green, a Hawaii island physician and House Health Committee chairman, described the benefits of injured workers getting drugs directly from their physicians and urged the city to settle the dispute by Aug. 24.

Green called the city’s settlement offer to the company unreasonable and indicated that Automated HealthCare had "graciously agreed" to accept a discounted amount to resolve the dispute.

Eight days later, the company donated $2,000 to Green’s campaign, pushing Automated HealthCare’s cumulative contributions to Green to $4,000, the maximum allowed for an election cycle for a state senatorial candidate, according to campaign spending records. He was one of only two lawmakers in the 76-member Legislature to receive campaign contri­- butions from the company.

Kondo told the commission and later the Star-Advertiser that had the ethics code not been amended, his staff would have made inquiries regarding the Green situation to determine whether the facts warranted a recommendation to the commission for opening a formal investigation.

But because of Act 208, there were no potential code violations to look into, according to Kondo.

Before the law was changed, legislators had a more narrow exemption to what is called the fair treatment provision in the code.

The exemption, which also is mirrored in the state Constitution, applied only when lawmakers performed their "legislative functions."

Relying on court decisions, the commission construed such functions to mean participation in committee hearings, floor debates, bill voting and other activities related to passing legislation, according to Kondo.

But when legislators crafted the bill to extend certain exemptions to task force members, eight words — "in the exercise of the legislator’s legislative functions" — were deleted from the fair treatment provision.

Removing those eight words broadened the exemption to apply to all official actions taken by legislators, including constituent services, Kondo told the Star-Advertiser.

A complete exemption would mean legislators could misuse their positions to benefit themselves or others — and such action would not violate the ethics code.

"I was not aware, and I do not believe other House members were aware, of the complete exemption," House Speaker Calvin Say said in a written response to Star-Advertiser questions.

Say said he would support a bill in the coming session to restore the more narrow exemption.

"Of course, I cannot make a commitment for the entire Legislature," he said.

The change to HB 2175 that created the broader legislative exemption was made by the Senate Judiciary committee at the final public hearing for the bill. The committee adopted language developed by the Attorney General’s Office, according to its report recommending passage of the bill.

The legislation passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, with only two House members casting no votes.

The last time the Ethics Commission launched a formal investigation to determine whether a legislator violated the fair treatment provision was in 2006.

Senate Republicans had filed a complaint against then-Sen. Brian Kanno, accusing him of improperly using his office to try to influence a cruise liner to rehire a man who had been fired in 2004. The man had been accused of sexual harassment.

The commission dismissed the complaint after Kanno announced that he would not seek re-election.

Had the Kanno incident happened today, the commission would be unlikely to pursue a case because of Act 208, Kondo said.

Legislators adopted HB 2175 to exempt members of state task forces from portions of the ethics code. The legislation stemmed from questions about whether members of a mortgage foreclosures task force were subject to the code.

Besides the broadened legislative exemption, Kondo said commission staff had other concerns about exemptions created by Act 208.

The new law, for instance, permits members of state task forces to use confidential information they obtain through their task force duties to benefit themselves or private businesses they may work for, Kondo said.

Like legislators, task force members also are exempt from the fair treatment provision, meaning they could use their positions to gain unfair advantages for themselves or their employers, Kondo said.

The commission is considering possible legislation to propose to address concerns with Act 208.

Say said he would be willing to address the concerns, though he has no specific proposals in mind.