Proposed Hawaii Tourism Authority board rule criticized as ‘gag order’

The Hawaii Tourism Authority is debating a new code of conduct that says if board members intend to publicly oppose a board action, they must resign before doing so.

The proposed code also says board members must show professionalism by fostering an environment of “respect, cooperation and collegiality” among board members and not unduly disrupting the board from operating in an efficient and effective manner. They also must refrain from intruding on administrative issues that are the responsibility of management, except to monitor results and prohibit actions that conflict with board policy.

The new code of conduct, which expands the 2019 code of conduct to 25 items from 10, is part of an HTA effort to reorganize following a year of significant legislative scrutiny and community pushback.

HTA’s Administrative Standing Committee reviewed the proposed changes Thursday and has recommended that the board keep its simpler original code of conduct. However, HTA Chairman George Kam said the proposed draft is still subject to a full board vote, which would occur at an upcoming meeting.

Some committee members objected to line item No. 7 in the draft, which says that a board member must “resign his/her position as a board member if she/he intends to publicly oppose a board action before doing so.”

David Arakawa, HTA vice chairman, raised concerns over fairness and the ability of board members to publicly state when something is not right.

Arakawa added, “My major concern is this: Is HTA so paranoid that they want to propose a gag order on board members?”

HTA board member Kyoko Kimura also expressed concern about the proposed changes. “To be honest, my first impression when I reviewed it was, ‘Did I do something wrong?’”

Keith Regan, HTA chief administrative officer, who authored the draft proposal, said it was driven by the board’s change management plan and that there was no intent to silence board members. HTA’s change management plan is its reorgani- zation from a tourism marketing agency into primarily a destination management agency.

Regan said the language for line item No. 7 was inspired by the Society of Actuaries code, which he consulted while researching possible updates to the code of conduct.

“I do not recall any specific issue that needed to be addressed, just that updating/revising the code of conduct and bylaws were part of the overall change management plan that was adopted by the board,” Regan told the Star-Advertiser after the meeting. “This was just one of many tasks we’ve been undertaking as part of the overall process.”

Regan characterized the discussion at the Administrative Standing Committee meeting as a “healthy debate,” which he said “ultimately led to the committee determining that the original code of conduct was acceptable and that no changes were needed at this time.”

HTA began reorganizing its structure and operations over the summer so that it “could become a more effective destination management organization to achieve our all-encompassing goal of Malama Ku‘u Home (caring for my beloved home) through regenerative tourism.”

The reorganization came as HTA grappled with criticism from the Legislature that it lacked transparency and accountability, and from the community, which wanted to see the agency focus more on destination management than tourism marketing.

HTA had broad support when it was created in 1998 to help the tourism industry overcome a seven-year slump after the Japan bubble burst. But over the years the agency and the work it does have become increasingly politicized.

In recent years HTA has pivoted from a singular focus on marketing and branding to a mission that puts more emphasis on natural resources, the community and growing tourism through visitor spending rather than arrivals. But those actions still haven’t been enough to appease lawmakers, who cut HTA’s funding to $79 million from $82 million in 2018.

Last year’s Legislature ultimately took away HTA’s dedicated budget and autonomy to execute its own procurement, and cut its budget. State lawmakers reduced HTA’s 2021 funding to $60 million during the past legislative season; although the agency’s budget was ultimately larger due to carryover funds and Gov. David Ige’s decision to allow an early transient accommodations tax distribution.

Resident sentiment toward tourism weakened throughout the pandemic, while hostility toward tourism has begun to increase as visitors have started coming back in greater numbers. The spread of illegal vacation rentals into neighborhoods — a trend HTA has fought in recent years — has only exacerbated the situation.

Frequent HTA leadership changes haven’t helped, either. Current HTA President and CEO John De Fries joined the agency in 2020 following a decision from past HTA President and CEO Chris Tatum to retire from the position after less than two years at the helm.

Colin Moore, director of the Public Policy Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said HTA’s proposed board conduct requirements could be related to the heightened scrutiny, some of it unfair, that HTA has endured.

“When you are under threat, one way to deal with it is to present a united front. However, bunker mentality is not the way to reinvent,” Moore said. “It wouldn’t accomplish what they want to accomplish, and it would invite further scrutiny because it is unusual.”

Moore said if HTA adds a clause that discourages board members from public criticism, it would give HTA’s critics an opening to use it as an example of lack of transparency.

“It’s the sort of thing that a critical legislator would pick up and use as a way to criticize them,” he said.

Keli‘i Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said he believes that the proposed policy could hamper transparency and robust discussion.

“It is essential that the public board members have the freedom to state their views and convictions, even when those views differ from the majority,” Akina said. “The fact that a board member has a dissenting viewpoint does not necessarily constitute opposition to the board or obstruction. Members can state their differences and still respect and support the decision-making authority of the board.”

Akina added that “such a policy might discourage capable people from volunteering or agreeing to serve on the board at all.”

Natalie Iwasa, who serves on the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation board of directors and has served on the Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board, said that she’s never heard such guidance formalized.

“I’ve asked the Neighborhood Commission about expressing my views and also the Corporation Counsel regarding HART, and I’ve always been told it’s OK,” Iwasa said. “You have a right to express your individual opinion as long as you make it clear that that is what you are doing, that it’s not representative of the board that you are on.”

Outspoken former HART board member Joe Uno called the idea “absurd” and said he wouldn’t want to serve on a board that had a rule like that.

“It just sounds so authoritarian on the face of it that one would have to reject it if one was living in a democracy,” Uno said. “Boards and people on the board should have a right to have a dissenting opinion on things. I’ve been on several boards, volunteer boards mostly, and I many times have had dissenting opinions on things, and it turned out that it made sense for the organization to maybe shift gears.”