A proposal to prohibit city and county employees from accepting gifts related to their official duties was returned to a lower committee of the Honolulu City Council.

On Monday the Council could not agree on amendments for Bill 26, first introduced in 2022 by Council Chair Tommy Waters, to curb potential conflicts of interest or even prevent public corruption.

The draft measure, ma­terializing after corruption scandals at city agencies including inside the Honolulu Police Department and the city Department of Planning and Permitting, would prohibit gifts to the mayor, prosecuting attorney, Council members, city administration officers or any person employed by the city.

As defined in the bill, a gift means any gift, whether in the form of money, goods, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality or a thing “of value, favor, gratuity, commission, or promise in any other form” received by a city employee from anyone doing business with the city.

The prohibited gift-givers would include “lobbyists, vendors, contractors, clients, political committees, tenants, concessionaires, persons with an interest that may be affected by performance or non-performance of the official’s or employee’s official duties, and any individual seeking official action from, or doing business with, the city,” according to the draft measure.

Certain exemptions to the gift-giving ban are included under the draft version of Bill 26:

>> Each fiscal year, from July 1 to June 30, no city administration officer or employee shall solicit, accept or receive, directly or indirectly, from any one source any gift or gifts, unless of negligible value — an item equal to or less than $25.

>> Gifts received by a will or intestate succession.

>> Gifts received as part of a trust established by a living or deceased spouse or ancestor.

>> Gifts from a spouse, fiance, fiancee, any relative, fourth-degree relative like a great-great grandfather, or the spouse, domestic partner, fiance or fiancee of such a relative. However, a gift from any such person shall not be exempt if the person is acting as an agent or intermediary for any person not covered “by this subsection.”

>> Political campaign contributions that comply with state law.

>> Gifts that, within 30 days after receipt, are returned to the giver or donated to a public body or to an educational or charitable institution without the donation being claimed by a city administration officer or employee as a charitable contribution for tax purposes.

>> Exchanges of negligible and approximately equal value on holidays, birthdays or special occasions.

>> Lawful compensation as a city administration officer or employer.

>> Typical beverage or snack given when attending a conference or meeting in an office.

>> Items customarily given to express condolences or sympathy, such as flowers, food items or cards given to a city administration officer or employee in connection to a death or significant injury. Such expressions of condolences may include monetary gifts of negligible value.

>> Lei of negligible value at a celebration.

>> Award, plaque, certificate, memento, novelty or similar item of no resale value given in recognition of the employee’s civic, charitable, political, professional or public service.

>> Gifts received while visiting other cities, counties, states or countries, or while hosting visitors, when it would be a breach of protocol to refuse the gift or other tokens or recognition presented by representatives of governmental bodies acting in their official capacities, the draft bill indicates.

Of late, the Council’s Committee on Executive Matters and Legal Affairs and the Honolulu Ethics Commission have worked in partnership to further craft Bill 26.

At the meeting, Laurie Wong-Nowinski, the Ethics Commission’s assistant executive director and legal counsel, told the panel that the bill “really helps the commission to achieve its goals of clarifying and strengthening gift laws.”

And via a newly proposed floor draft, Council member Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, wished to add more amendments — including ones concerned with people who have “financial relationships” with the city — to the measure’s current committee draft.

But after changes to Bill 26 were offered, Vice Chair Esther Kia‘aina balked. “I have deep concerns about the manner of how we are considering this measure,” she said.

Among them, Kia‘aina said since she had little time to review the two latest, competing versions of the measure, she requested Bill 26 be referred to the EMLA committee for more deliberation.

She’d note, for example, some added amendments — including one involving gift-giving and “indirect” impacts to even parents of a city staffer’s “live-in girlfriend” — went well beyond the scope of what she anticipated for Bill 26.

“Which would be for the Council members, right?” she said. “So, I’m just a little worried that if we don’t have a deliberative dialogue on such an important issue that we would be doing a disservice even to the general public.”

“And I commit that we will try to get something done before the end of the fiscal year,” she added.

To that, Wong-Nowinski said the Ethics Commission “would not be opposed to having this measure reintroduced in order to further discussion and to ensure that there is a dialogue.”

But the delay means the measure goes back to the drawing board. And as it stands, Bill 26 has a tight deadline for passage, its expiration date being April 12.

“So unless we pass it out today, we’re going to have to reintroduce and go through all three readings again,” Waters told the Council prior to its vote. “Just so everybody’s on the same page.”

Ultimately, Dos Santos-Tam — who chairs the EMLA committee — withdrew his amendments, agreeing to refer the bill back to his panel.

“We do want a policy that works … and so if it takes a little bit longer to get there, or perhaps a different vehicle since this one expires on April 12, I’m happy to do that,” he said.

The EMLA committee’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.