Explain your role on the Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct (CISC).

I chair the CISC, directed by the state House of Representatives to assess state law and rules regarding public officers’ and employees’ standards of conduct, including ethics, campaign finance and lobbying concerns.

On March 31, our interim report recommended passage of 15 bills that would strengthen investigations and prosecutions of corruption, increase the openness and transparency of government operations, enhance public trust and confidence in government officials and employees, and curtail certain campaign practices during legislative sessions. Seven were passed by the Legislature, with two vetoed by the governor.

After extensive public hearings and research, our final report was submitted Dec. 1, recommending 31 bills and resolutions written by the commission (including prior recommendations that did not become law). All the recommendations work together and support one another, and we recommend the Legislature adopt the entire package. That may sound audacious, but we are at a critical time in Hawaii.

How do the recommendations address Hawaii’s obstacles in rooting out corruption and ethical and legal violations?

The House recognized that new state laws are needed to more effectively combat corruption among public officials and employees, as corruption cases in Hawaii have been primarily investigated and prosecuted by federal authorities. The commission recommends the Legislature enact laws modeled after federal fraud and other statutes, so that state and county law enforcement have tools to root out and prosecute corruption.

Further, corruption happens in darkness, out of the public eye. We recommend more light, to make it more difficult to engage in corrupt practices, with laws and rules that bring greater transparency to the conduct of public officials and employees, as well as lobbyists.

Why are the the commission’s recommendations necessary?

We have had what seems to be an unending series of corruption cases in state and county government. The public is angry, and trust in government is sinking. It is time to act, and act boldly: That is why the commission recommends strengthening investigation and prosecution of fraud, bringing greater transparency to government operations, creating more ethical awareness and oversight and reducing the power of money in politics.

CISC recommends a Citizen’s Bill of Rights and establishment of a public advocate to safeguard these rights. Why?

The Citizen’s Bill of Rights is a recommendation that largely comes from former and highly respected legislator Jim Shon. It recognizes the rights of all members of the public to be treated at the Legislature with fairness, equity, respect and honesty, to participate in public hearings, to review written testimony, drafts of bills and amendments, and seeks to ensure the Legislature conducts itself in an open and transparent manner, among other things. The public could go to the Office of Public Advocate when these rights are not being respected. To a large extent, these rights are respected at the Legislature today, so here should be no problem in codifying them to ensure they are consistently respected.

What is the connection between the scandals that have plagued state and county governments and CISC’s recommendations?

Corruption scandals that emerged largely concern secrecy and money: Public officials and employees believed they could illegally take the public’s money and abuse their positions without getting caught. If the Legislature adopts CISC’s recommendations, it sends a clear message that this type of behavior will be discovered, prosecuted and punished. That should deter much of this conduct in the future, and help to restore the public’s trust in government.

Bonus question

In 1993, you represented plaintiffs in Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin), filed against the state of Hawaii, which challenged prohibitions on same-sex marriage and led to a Hawaii Supreme Court decision finding the prohibitions presumptively unconstitutional. The legal landscape for same-sex marriage has changed dramatically since then. Given that, why is the Respect for Marriage Act needed?

The Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law Tuesday, requires federal and state governments to recognize existing same-sex marriages, in the event the U.S. Supreme Court reverses previous decisions requiring governments to allow and recognize same-sex marriage. Significantly, it also repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which rejected same-sex marriage at the federal level and authorized states to do the same. DOMA was passed by Congress on Sept. 10, 1996, while I was giving my opening statement at trial in Baehr vs. Miike (Lewin).

Hopefully, the Supreme Court does not reverse its precedent on marriage equality. If it does, the Act is not sufficient, in that it would not require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — but it is questionable whether the Congress has the power to do that. It’s the best the Congress can do at this time, and it is a big deal.

THE BIO FILE

>> Title: Retired judge, mediator, arbitrator and part-time Palau Supreme Court Justice.

>> Professional: Counsel to Micronesian governments; civil rights attorney; Associate Judge, Intermediate Court of Appeals; Chair, Access to Justice Commission

>> Family: Wife, Carlyn Tani, writer and filmmaker; sons Jason and Bobby

>> One more thing: Invited by President Joe Biden and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden to Washington, D.C., for the signing of the Respect for Marriage Act on Dec. 13.