DANIEL Mollway, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, says the Star-Bulletin needs to "fine tune" its thinking on ethics and the commission's work. Well, the Star-Bulletin's thinking on ethics is fine, thank you. We have strict ethics policies that we enforce vigorously. If only the state could say the same. Ethics is knowing
right from wrongMollway objected to Clay Jones' cartoon depicting ethics commissioners with their heads in the sand on the appointment of United Public Workers chief Gary Rodrigues to the state panel that selects judges. That's a constitutional matter and not the Ethics Commission's job, Mollway said.
It's not the commission's job to enforce bribery statutes either, Mollway said, taking me to task for a Volcanic Ash column that criticized commission inaction in a conflict-of-interest case involving former Senate President James Aki and developer Sukarman Sukamto. Mollway said my thinking was "simplistic."
I'm stung that the brainy Mollway, whose opinion I respect, is unimpressed by the depth of my thinking. But I'm a simple guy who thinks ethics are a simple matter of knowing right from wrong and doing what's right. If you're reduced to defending yourself with legalistic hair-splitting, maybe that's where the thinking needs to be fine-tuned.
The purpose of our state ethics law is simple -- to protect us from conflicts of interest in which public officials use their office to further their private interests at the govern-ment's expense.
In both of the cases Mollway raises, the Ethics Commission declined to rule on clear conflicts.
Rodrigues is involved in many court cases. Most recently, the UPW filed highly publicized lawsuits in state courts that successfully challenged the 1996 vote calling for a constitutional convention and government's right to privatize public services.
How can the judges now hearing privatization cases ignore that they'll have to go before Rodrigues' Judicial Selection Commission for reappointment to their jobs? It's an inherent conflict of interest.
In the other case, Aki admitted that he asked Sukamto to develop his Nanakuli property at the same time Sukamto was lobbying the Legislature to buy his Aloha Motors property for the convention center.
Mollway said there was no ethics violation because there was no evidence of a quid pro quo between Aki and Sukamto.
I beg to differ. Aki created an ethics dilemma simply by soliciting a private deal with Sukamto. In the worst case, it was an invitation to a bribe. In the best case, Sukamto had little choice but to humor Aki, whatever the senator's intentions, or face possible retaliation on the convention center.
MOLLWAY says legislators "are constantly soliciting those they do business with for all sorts of things: campaign funds, jobs, loans, business deals, etc."
That may be true, but it's alarming that it's OK with the Ethics Commission. Think of the possible Aki-like scenarios:
Bank lobbyist: Mr. Legislator, I think you'll find a lot of merit in our banking bill.
Legislator: Can I have a job?
Lobbyist: Our bill is good for the state.
Legislator: Can I get a loan?
Mollway: No ethics violation here.
The Ethics Commission must find ways to hold officials accountable to ethical standards rather than find excuses not to rule. If commissioners think ethics laws lack teeth, they should be leading the fight for tougher laws.
It's that simple.