������Ƶ

Robert Harris has had a front-row seat for efforts to reform government in Hawaii as executive director of the State Ethics Commission and a member of the special House commission created in response to a series of public scandals. As another legislative session winds down, he talked to Civil Beat about the ongoing effort to make state and local governments more transparent.

When the Foley Commission was formed two years, there was real momentum for government reform in Hawaii. Now there seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to what the Legislature has accomplished during the last two sessions. The first is: “Wow, look at all the reform bills that passed, what a success.” The second is: “Yeah, but none of the major reform proposals have passed, what a failure.” Which school do you belong to, and why?

I might actually say we can do both. I can give praise for significant reforms undertaken last year while recognizing more work needs to be done.

Let me put a finer point on it. Dismissing the action taken to date by the Legislature is counterproductive. The House and Speaker (Scott) Saiki deserve recognition for establishing the Foley Commission, which was an independent and bipartisan commission.

And then those commission members genuinely deserve credit for producing a broad swath of proposals intended to fix a number of longstanding problems. And the Legislature, led by two very good Judiciary chairs, deserves recognition for helping implement many of those systemic reforms.

Meaningful reform is complex. Public corruption is a global issue, and there are no quick fixes. Progress occurs through pragmatic regulations that promote transparency in ethical conduct. In addition, you have to have enforcement agencies that have the necessary authority and resources. 

Having said that, even though many bills and changes have occurred, it’s plain more work still needs to be done.

Of the reform bills that have passed, which ones do you think are most consequential?

One thing that perhaps hasn’t gotten as much attention as it deserves is that lobbyists are now prohibited from giving or promising to give campaign contributions during the legislative session. Lobbyists are also now prohibited from giving gifts to legislators.

Lobbyists, by definition, are the ones hired to ensure more advocacy for a particular policy position. They are the so-called special interests at the Capitol. These changes help prevent a slippery slope toward more unpredictable criminal corruption.

I’d also add, although this has not gone into effect yet, that lobbyists will also be required to help provide greater levels of transparency regarding their activities at the Capitol. This will help ensure that the public and the media can identify points of concern.

Anything else that you think maybe is flying a little under the radar that has been passed?

We made significant criminal reforms, giving state and county prosecutors the tools necessary to be able to prosecute public corruption. And although I certainly hope we don’t necessarily see those tools used frequently, enforcement of laws is critically important, too.

Also we did pass nepotism reform. Essentially any entity in the executive branch or affiliated entity, roughly 60,000 employees, are now subject to nepotism restrictions. In addition, both the House and Senate have adopted rules prohibiting nepotism.

We’ve had approximately 10 nepotism exceptions submitted to the Ethics Commission, and those have been decided in a public format, in a way that was never done before. And so people can see exactly why someone’s being hired or not hired, in a public and transparent way. And I think that is a really healthy change.

I understand that in your role as executive director of the Ethics Commission, you’re reluctant to talk about the major reform proposals that the commission hasn’t taken a stand on. What can you say about reform bills that didn’t pass this session?

One in conference committee would have required legislators to provide greater disclosures of income received from special interests. Legislators are part-time employees. Many have other forms of employment. So the purpose of this bill was to ensure that income received from lobbying organizations, commonly known as special interests, was public and transparent.

It’s something I hope will get reconsidered next year.

Hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds are issued in contracts each year. Greater transparency can help ensure those dollars are wisely spent.

The Campaign Spending Commission proposed limiting campaign contributions from officers and directors of companies that have a contract with government. This step would have greatly limited pay-to-play politics. l don’t think this bill got the consideration it deserved.

Perhaps, because of the Civil Beat/New York Times article, this bill will get more attention moving forward.

Similarly, the Ethics Commission proposed to include individuals seeking contracts from high level officials. By making those interactions more transparent, the potential for corruption diminishes and the likelihood of fraud and waste is reduced.

Hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds are issued in contracts each year. Greater transparency can help ensure those dollars are wisely spent.

In addition to passing new laws, the Legislature can reform itself by changing its rules of operation. And again, some people believe real progress has been made with rule changes and others think lawmakers have resisted the more consequential changes that were proposed by the Foley Commission or other parties. Where do you stand on this?

I am not particularly concerned how a change occurs so long as the problem is solved. The House of Representatives, as I noted, did just prohibit nepotism and has adopted a more stringent conflict of interest standard that applies to general state employees. Those efforts should be applauded.

And in addition we still see some changes occurring. For example, the Legislature is making a more robust effort to verbally describe in detail each bill being considered and what changes are being proposed. It’s a small improvement, but addresses a frequent criticism of the opaqueness of the conference committee process.

I think some of these ideas have been achieved. And we do have to recognize that politics is the art of the possible. I believe we’ll have to review what gaps remain after this legislative session and determine how to address those concerns next year.

Can you see why some people might be frustrated by the pace of change when it comes to major reforms?

I first got involved in the political process when I was in college, and started helping as a grassroots activist on trying to pass a bottle bill. This is the 5-cent deposit on every glass and plastic bottle in order to encourage recycling. No state had passed a new bottle bill in I think 25 years, and Hawaii consistently rejected that bill every single year.

It took a lot of grassroots activism, a lot of good advocacy, a lot of good media coverage, and over a period of two to three years we were able to help get this bill passed. When the public pressure builds up on something, it is possible to see movement and it does happen.

The coverage of the sheer amount of money flowing from officers and directors and contractors is particularly noteworthy.

Is Civil Beat being counterproductive when it points out the unresponsiveness of the Legislature on major reform proposals?

I used to refer to what I call the inside game and the outside game. Sometimes you want to have people that are more aggressive. I also think we do have relatively good judiciary chairs. And I think it’s sometimes also a matter trying to get other members of the Legislature on board as well.

I think you have to provide both the carrot and stick where there is acknowledgment when change and reform are happening. And you have to acknowledge when things are going on that are not in the public interest.

I’m really appreciative of Civil Beat’s coverage of these issues. I think it’s critically important. Again, talking about the campaign donation issue, the coverage of the sheer amount of money flowing from officers and directors and contractors is particularly noteworthy. I think that type of information is going to help instigate more policy reform.

What’s coming next from the Ethics Commission in terms of reform?

Some of the lobbying requirements are going to go into effect, and we are in the process of trying to make sure that those can be executed to include a lot more detail on what a lobbyist is working on.

We’re trying to create the online mechanism to allow that to happen, and then to be able to allow the public to see that and have that visible.