My Side of the Story
The inquiry by the state Campaign Spending Commission into my campaign spending account is nearly two years old. It has dragged on not due to inaction on our part but because the commission is so bogged down in its day-to-day work. We have promptly addressed and answered the issues raised by the commission's executive director Bob Watada and look forward to concluding this exercise as soon as possible. Watada will confirm this. Inquiry isn’t
questioning my
ethical standardsAt the outset Rob Perez' April 4 "Raising Cane" column suggests that I am facing an "ethical" dilemma and that my campaign spending is "questionable at best." The Campaign Spending Commission is not conducting an "ethical" inquiry. The issue is whether expenditures were campaign related. The column's headline also suggests that my actions may be "unethical." I take issue with that suggestion.
As to the allegation that my campaign expenditures are "questionable at best," the items identified by the commission total only 1 to 5 percent of the money spent by my organization during the six years I have been an elected official.
I am particularly bothered by the allegations surrounding my attempt to attract the Smithsonian Institution's national tour celebrating its 150th anniversary to Honolulu. Although the exhibit did not come to Hawaii, my work generated serious talks between the Smithsonian and federal, state and city officials. As was the fate of many worthwhile projects presented during our economic recession, this campaign failed because of a lack of financial support.
The project was initiated when I took a trip to Los Angeles to talk to Smithsonian officials and observe the opening of the two-year, 12-city exhibition. As a Council member with then two years political experience, I felt it would be great for our state and an opportunity to make my mark as a community leader. My trip was short and efficient, with a narrow purpose. Travel was economy class. I stayed at a hotel for the reasonable rate of about $100 a night, tax not included.
I'm a politician and I benefit from positive exposure. All of my expenditures are aimed toward that goal. None of the items were for purely personal benefit. The issue boils down to my broader interpretation of a campaign-related expenditure and the non-political Campaign Spending Commission's narrower focus. As I have stated to Watada, if after discussing the individual expenditures, his interpretation of the law differs from mine, I will do what is necessary to correct the situation.
Finally, I take issue with the suggestion that my activities are in any way related to the recent travails of one of my colleagues. I have not sought city reimbursement for campaign-related trips. I have not used campaign funds for personal trips, meals or entertainment. The activities of my staff during working hours focus exclusively on city business.
As Council chairman, I have taken the unprecedented move to request an ethics refresher course for my colleagues and senior staff. The goal is to obtain the training necessary to give our people the proper tools to do their jobs; to prevent mistakes to be sure, but also to prevent paranoia and paralysis due to the frequency of ethical questions.
Yes, as individuals we've made mistakes of various degree. While we continue to do the people's work, we strive to resolve our personal problems.