Council Chair and Chamber Director: How Conflicting Are These Positions?

Without giving it any thought, it would be hard to think of a better fit than a city politician running the local chamber of commerce. After all, the goals of a chamber of commerce and of a city government are pretty much the same:  security, good government, good services, low taxes.

But when you think about it more, you realize that a chamber of commerce is not just a cheerleader for the city, but also a powerful organization that lobbies city politicians on a variety of issues, representing the interests of local businesses. A local chamber of commerce is also an organization in which certain companies from certain industries predominate, especially those that contract with local government and those that seek permits and approvals from local government.

In addition, there is the issue of appearance. An article on the KITV4 website this week quotes a rail transit critic saying that he thinks Honolulu's city council chair was given the job as executive director of the Kapolei Chamber of Commerce as a reward for his continuing support for a rail transit program.

The council chair is quoted as saying, “I have supported rail long before there was a chamber [it was founded in 2008]. So I don't see any conflict with that.” But he has agreed not to vote on rail matters in the future.

There are two problems here. One, he is not agreeing to withdraw from participation on rail matters, so he will apparently still be using his position as council chair to support the rail program, despite the fact that he is working for a group of businesses that feel they can profit from the rail program. And two, this is only one of many matters where he will have to choose between representing the chamber and representing the public.

The council chair is quoted as saying that he has not felt pressure to follow the chamber’s agenda.“I think I made my vote on rail because I believe in the project and the issue, not because I draw a paycheck from the chamber.”

What he doesn't appear to understand is that, when it comes to conflicts of interest, it doesn't matter what an official thinks about his voting with a conflict. The conflict issue here is not only whom he is representing when he votes, but the ongoing appearance of impropriety from holding these two positions.

Indirect Conflicts
The article points out a legal situation that is always troubling for me to see:  in Honolulu, council members with indirect financial conflicts may still vote, as long as they disclose their conflict. An indirect conflict can be just as harmful to the public trust as a direct conflict. In fact, in some ways the chamber position looks worse, like a fancy way of dressing up a bag of cash.

The fact is that conflicts involve relationships, and when a job is funded primarily by development interests, when an employee answers to those development interests, the relationship of that employee with those interests is clear. It doesn't matter if what is going here is direct or indirect, or whether it involves influence or reward or pay-to-play. Conflict laws don't, or shouldn't, require intent or quid pro quos to be proven.

As it turns out, in Honolulu (pursuant to §3-8.2), council members have excepted themselves from the requirement not to vote on a matter where they have a direct conflict. But it appears that they cannot otherwise participate.

Seeking Ethics Advice
This is a complicated matter. Not only are there ongoing conflicts, but there is also the issue of incompatible positions, the issue of a possible gift, the issue of misuse of office, and the issue of the council chair's role as a lobbyist, since most chamber directors act as lobbyists, formally or informally. The biggest mistake the council chair has made so far is his failure to seek advice on the chamber position when he was offered it and now when it has become an issue.

Asked if the position means a lot of conflicts, the council chair said, "That is on the face of it. There is something that I need to decide for myself.” This is absolutely wrong. Not seeking formal advice from the Honolulu ethics commission is the worst thing he can do. It puts into doubt any choice he makes other than complete withdrawal from all matters that might benefit the principal sponsors of his chamber. This might make him completely ineffective as a council chair.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---