Ethics panel must be above reproach

Recent actions by the Honolulu Ethics Commission against its longtime executive director and legal counsel, Chuck Totto, have raised eyebrows and questions about how well the commission, not to mention Totto, is fulfilling its stated role to “improve and maintain public confidence in government officials and employees.”

So far, not much has been done to inspire public confidence.

The commission recently suspended Totto without pay for the month of March after hiring an outside investigator to look into a complaint about his management of the commission’s staff.

In a letter to Totto dated Feb. 29, commission Chairwoman Victoria Marks, citing the report’s findings, criticized Totto’s litigation and organizational skills as well as his professional judgment. She also said that Totto may have exposed the commission to liability for a potential violation of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act.

These are serious allegations. In making them, Marks and the commission have raised doubts about whether Totto and his staff can be counted on to conduct thorough and impartial investigations of ethical lapses by city government officials — of which there already have been too many.

There is an obvious public interest in understanding what’s going on. Unfortunately, answers don’t appear to be forthcoming.

After the news media filed public records requests, the commission released a heavily redacted copy of the outside investigator’s report that formed the basis for the commission’s decision to punish Totto. Roughly half of the 16-page report was blacked out, including nearly everything under the headings, “Pertinent Background Facts” and “The Events In Question.” Only tersely worded findings were provided.

Granted, redactions are to be expected; some confidentiality is required in personnel matters. But in this case, the commission, the public’s independent watchdog, left the public starved for information.

The solutions imposed by the commission were no more reassuring.

The commission decided that Totto, its executive director for 16 years, was causing “undue workplace stress” in the office because he did not have adequate written procedures in place to manage investigations.

So the commission imposed its own, including a requirement that the staff attorneys and investigators complete daily timesheets in tenth-of-an-hour increments and provide them to the commission. How this will reduce stress among an overworked and underfunded staff was not explained.

Even assuming the actions against Totto were justified and necessary, the current commission — including the three newest members, all retired judges appointed by Mayor Kirk Caldwell — needs to consider more carefully the message its actions send to the public. The commission is not a court of law; it must consider the gray area of public perception, and cannot assume it holds the public’s trust.

It was a public outcry that forced the commission to rescind an ill-advised policy that attempted to severely curtail the ability of Totto, the commission staff and the commissioners to talk to the news media. The policy was implemented after Totto made comments about the validity of the votes of some City Council members who allegedly had improperly accepted gifts from lobbyists and other parties without disclosing them. The policy, which was supported by the city’s lawyer, Corporation Counsel Donna Leong, raised uncomfortable questions about the susceptibility of the commission to political pressure.

The Honolulu Ethics Commission plays a crucial role in ensuring that city government officials act in the best interests of the public, and not their own. As such, it must be aggressive in its investigations, transparent in its operations and above reproach.

Unfortunately, its recent moves and cryptic action against its executive director have taken an unsettling turn from those goals.