HB2457 is on the committee’s 2 p.m. agenda for decision making.

The bill would would open the door to legal bribery by allowing gifts of unlimited value to be solicited or accepted by state employees and elected officials even if it is obvious “the gift is intended to influence the legislator or employee in the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action on the legislator’s or employee’s part.”

It’s important to keep in mind that the freebies aren’t limited to legislators or to elected officials. All employees would get to vie for those rewards for official action they take. Trying to block an investigation of your business? Give the department head a couple of tickets to a benefit concert, and throw in a couple more for friends. Simple.

That, to put it bluntly, is an effective repeal of this important part of government ethics.

The issue was first raised by attorney-lobbyist Bill Kaneko last year after lawmakers were advised not to accept tickets to a fundraiser sponsored by the Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs. Kaneko is the CEO of the group, chair of Governor Abercrombie’s campaign committee, and a key insider in the administration.

This year, Kaneko’s interest put the matter on Governor Abercrombie’s agenda, with the result that HB2457, and a Senate companion bill (SB2719) are part of the governor’s legislative package.

Both bills have single referrals, meaning that there are fewer points where public input can effectively block their passage.

I have to say admit that I’m not an absolutist on the issue of inviting legislators to charitable events. When I served as executive director of Common Cause/Hawaii back in the 1980s, we routinely invited legislators who we felt shared our values to attend our modest fundraisers.

But I fear Kaneko harkens back to the good old days of the 1990s when he was director of Asian Pacific outreach for the Democratic National Committee, and rubbing shoulders with lobbyists and other power brokers at charity events was part of the political routine. Of course, that was a period that ended in scandal and prosecutions for illegal fundraising activities.

So how do we sort things out? I don’t agree with the assessment of John Temple, over at Civil Beat, who says any gifts of this kind would be too many.

On the other hand, the League of Women Voters pointed to an excellent article describing the lessons learned by convicted felon and former big league lobbyist, Jack Abramoff (“To my great shame“).

Abramoff had lots to say about how lobbyists work and the traps for public officials. Legislators may be doing things that are not illegal, but are wrong, he said. Legal lines are drawn, but these lines are not always “right.” Abramoff explained what he sees as a corrupt system. “No lawmaker believes he or she can be bought.” But government is composed of “ordinary, decent people who slowly accommodate themselves to a system that is rife with moral predicaments,” he said. Lobbyists build relationships and gifts from them make a person feel good, he warned. “Always be five steps ahead.”

So can HB2457 be whittled down to something acceptable? Possibly, in my view.

Here’s what I would do.

• Leave Section 84-11(a) intact, including the ban on soliciting or accepting gifts “under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence the legislator or employee in the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action on the legislator’s or employee’s part.”

The ethics commission already has criteria for weighing whether invitations to events are acceptable, including whether the primary benefit is to the state (as in many educational programs) rather than the individual. Let the commission do its job.

• Within those constraints, permit charitable groups to invite elected officials–not all state employees–to their own fundraising events, so long as those invitations do not include multi-day events, travel or lodging, and the value is not unreasonably high. We can quibble over what is “unreasonable,” but certainly an agreement can be reached. And I don’t think the current $25 limit is reasonable. It’s one thing to attend a fundraiser downtown for the Hawaii Food Bank, it’s something quite different to accept a weekend at a neighbor island or mainland resort for an “informational workshop” under a charitable cover. If language can’t be crafted to distinguish the two, then it just won’t work.

• Require prompt reporting, similar to the notices of fundraisers required by the Campaign Spending Commission, whenever the charitable organization extending the invitation employs lobbyists or competes for government grants or contracts. These gifts should be disclosed prior to the date of the event, and disclosure should include the basic who, what, when, where, as well as both the face value of tickets as well as the actual cost to the donor organization.

I think that’s at least a place to start talking. Isn’t that what the legislative process is for?

This allows legislators, and other elected officials, to simply delay their annual filing until the deadline and effectively conceal their current interests from public view. Perfectly legal. Less than satisfactory for the public.

If you’re concerned about potential conflicts of interest–or just want to be reassured that your own elected officials don’t have financial interests that are likely to sway their judgement–all the year’s legislative action will be over before you have a chance to check the record.

Senator Les Ihara introduced a bill last year (along with Sen. Slom) to remedy the situation by moving the disclosure deadline up to the end of January, but the bill was quickly amended to eliminate the original purpose.

Luckily, though, not all legislators hide behind the late filing deadline.

Senate President Shan Tsutsui was the only member of the Senate whose personal financial disclosure was filed and available online this morning.

Over in the House, six members have current disclosure statements filed and available online:

Della Au Belatti

Rida Cabanilla

Gil Keith-Agaran

Marilyn Lee

Sylvia Luke

Mark Takai

Bravo to this select group for leading by example.

Meanwhile, the reports filed by Tsutsui and Takai illustrate another problem with the current disclosure guidelines. Both report substantial income from their insurance businesses (Tsutsui, $50,000-$100,000; Takai, $75,000-$150,000). Not bad for part-time work. The current ethics law does not require disclosure of individual clients, even if those clients include lobbyists or others with special interests. I’m not saying that either Tsutsui or Takai benefits from such arrangements, but we shouldn’t have to guess about such things. It’s just one other area in which the ethics law needs tightening up!

Oh, in case you’re wondering, neither Gov. Abercrombie nor Lt. Gov. Schatz have filed their disclosures as of today. John D. Waihee IV is the only one of the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to already have filed. None of the appointed members of the Board of Education have filed their latest disclosures.

This morning I was nosing around in news reports and court records of a previous case involving former chief George Freitas.

Two complaints were filed against Freitas with the police commission in 2001. Freitas was eventually found to have committed two violations of the department’s code of conduct, and resigned in 2003.

An interesting and possibly instructive legal case came out of the situation. At the time, the chief’s secretary, Jacquellyn Tokashiki, also served as secretary to the police commission.

In her capacity as commission secretary, Tokashiki received and processed the complaints, then set up the commission meeting where the complaints would be considered and maintained the commission’s internal records. She ended up being caught in the middle of the case. When the chief was reinstated at the beginning of 2002, he reassigned Tokashiki and later terminated her. She sued under Hawaii’s whistleblower protection law.

It was a complicated situation, and a later Hawaii Supreme Court opinion described how the complaints were processed. The complaints were filed with the police commission, the commission conducted the investigation, and the commission suspended the chief pending its outcome.

But here’s the thing that caught my eye.

A Star-Bulletin story in 2007, when the case was settled, noted that Tokashiki’s position as commission secretary had been transferred to the the mayor’s office, apparently to avoid the conflict in handling the complaints against the chief.

Freitas said yesterday that he did have Tokashiki transferred and did try to terminate her for searching his office without a warrant.

But, he said, she was never fired, since she went to court to block the termination.

Instead, Tokashiki moved to the mayor’s office and continued to serve as the Police Commission secretary until her retirement in 2004. The chief’s office got another secretary position, thus eliminating one of the causes of the controversy.

I’m guessing that the commission secretary may still be lodged in the mayor’s office, although the secretary would answer to the commission. At minimum, there’s surely a strong administrative memory of this arrangement, which could cause some confusion when sorting out the legal authority of the mayor versus the police commission.

Perhaps there will be more information made public following today’s meeting of the police commission.

The commission’s first item of business:

Pursuant to Hawai’i Revised Statutes, §92-4, 92-5(a) (2) and (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr. to provide the Commission with a briefing regarding personnel and/or disciplinary actions related to notarized complaint filed with the Police Commission on 01/31/12, and for the Commission to further consider and discuss said personnel and/or disciplinary actions. The purpose for this Executive Session is also for the Commission to obtain a briefing and consultation with its attorney as to its powers, duties privileges, immunities and liabilities as they relate to this agenda item.