No Conflict? When Reasonable Minds Disagree

By /
Reading time: 7 minutes.

Editor’s note: This is part of a Civil Beat series exploring conflicts of interest in the Hawaii Legislature. Read the related stories.

We already know what House Speaker Calvin Say thinks when it comes to potential conflicts of interest in the Hawaii House of Representatives. But what do you think?

Say ruled that more than 90 percent of potential conflicts were not conflicts and said lawmakers should vote on the bills before them because they’re representing their constituents. He pointed to the section of [pdf] that says conflicts of interest apply to “legislation (that) affects the member’s direct personal, familial, or financial interest except if the member, or the member’s relative, is part of a class of people affected by the legislation.”

But another section of House Rules caution lawmakers to consider what a “reasonable” person would think.

House Rule 60.4 tells members that they should, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, “Consider at all times whether their conduct would create in reasonable minds the perception that their ability to carry out legislative responsibilities with integrity and independence is either questionable or impaired.”

Ultimately, of course, the decision on who gets to vote and who is excused is made in just one man’s reasonable mind, and that man is Calvin Say.

Still, we were curious. We picked 10 what we thought were interesting examples from the list of 105 requests for a ruling this session and asked readers to weigh in on Facebook. We laid out the ground rules and kept the lawmakers’ identities secret to avoid tainting the results with personal politics.

To be sure, the sample sizes are small and the polls are admittedly unscientific. But if Facebook voting can approximate “reasonable minds,” some lawmakers’ conduct clearly failed to meet that standard.

In all 10 examples, Say or Vice Speaker Joey Manahan ruled that there was no conflict. In four of those cases, Facebook voters disagreed, saying there was a conflict and the lawmaker involved shouldn’t have voted. They didn’t think a liquor importer should vote on a liquor tax, a gas station owner should vote on penalties for the petroleum industry, a lawyer should vote on a bill lobbied by a partner or a health insurance provider should vote on tax breaks for companies that offer wellness programs.

If you want to express your opinion or share the conflict questions with your friends, voting remains open.

Here are the examples we shared, in the order we shared them, along with the real-world ruling for each one.

My Grandson Is a Med School Student

: Extends tobacco settlement appropriations to the University of Hawaii’s John A. Burns School Of Medicine through 2015, helping fund the training of new doctors.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “My grandson is at the Medical School.”

: By more than a 2-to-1 margin, voters said there was no conflict of interest and that Thielen should be allowed to vote.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

I Am an Importer of Liquor

: Raises the tax on alcohol in an attempt to balance the state’s budget.

The Disclosure: On , said, “I am an importer of liquor.”

: The majority said Say should be excused from voting, with many others picking the user-generated response “Need that question even be asked?” This was one of the four cases where voters disagreed with the official ruling.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

At My Gas Station We Sell Petroleum Products

: Reduces the penalties and fines for unfair trade practices by the petroleum industry.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “At my gas station we sell petroleum products.”

: An overwhelming majority voted that the case is indeed a conflict of interest and that Yamashita should be excused from voting. This was one of the four cases where voters disagreed with the official ruling.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

I Live on Land Zoned Agricultural

: Makes clear rural landowners should not be held liable if they don’t warn trespassers about dangerous terrain.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “I live on land that is zoned agricultural.”

: By more than a 2-to-1 margin, voters said there was no conflict of interest and that McKelvey should be allowed to vote.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

My Wife Is From Peru

: Establishes a sister-state relationship with Lima, Peru.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “My wife is from Peru.”

: By more than a 2-to-1 margin, voters said there was no conflict of interest and that Hashem should be allowed to vote.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

My Law Partner Lobbies This Bill

: Provides tax credits for the film industry.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “One of my law partners has been lobbying on this bill.”

: By more than a 4-to-1 margin, voters said there was a conflict of interest and Keith-Agaran should be excused from voting. This was one of the four cases where voters disagreed with the official ruling.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict. However, Keith-Agaran was excused from voting on on after he said, “I’m not sure if I will receive anything from what he is paid, but in an abundance of caution, I like to be excused.”

Top

: Increases court fees to pay for legal services for the poor.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “I serve on the Board of Directors for Legal Aid, one of the recipients of the fee and surcharge.”

: Voting was roughly split between those who said there was no conflict and those who said there was a conflict.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

My Family’s in Mortgage Remodification With Our Lender

The Bills ( and ): Regulate nonjudicial mortgage foreclosures.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. twice said, “My family鈥檚 currently undergoing a remodification with a lender.”

: Opinion was divided on whether McKelvey should vote.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

I Have a Family Member at University of Hawaii

: Appropriates funding for collective bargaining with the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “I do have a family member that I believe is in the University of Hawaii System.”

: Votes were split between those who said there was a conflict of interest and those who said there was no conflict of interest.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

I Own a Company That Brokers Health Insurance

: Provides a tax credit to companies that offer their employees a wellness program.

The Disclosure: On , Rep. said, “I own a company that brokers health insurance.”

: Voters strongly said that there was a conflict of interest and that Takai should be excused from voting. This was one of the four cases where voters disagreed with the official ruling.

Real-World Ruling: No Conflict.

Top

Support Independent, Unbiased News

Civil Beat is a nonprofit, reader-supported newsroom based in 贬补飞补颈驶颈. When you give, your donation is combined with gifts from thousands of your fellow readers, and together you help power the strongest team of investigative journalists in the state.

 

About the Author