Integrity, public trust, and public confidence are indispensable core values and concepts of government entities that I expanded upon during my recent interview by the Hawaiʻi State Elections Commission at a hearing held on June 10 to consider applicants for the position of a new commission chair from eight applicants.

This important commission is made up of nine members with four from each party, Democratic and Republican, and are appointed by their party’s legislative leaders. No qualifications, screening, interviews, confirmations, or other criteria is required for the appointed members. The eight members of the commission select their chairperson by a two-thirds vote (six out of the eight).

At the hearing I objected to the proceeding continuing unless and until the commission disqualified two of the eight applicants who did not comply with the vacancy announcement requirement that candidates submit a timely resume as well as a letter of interest. To accept and or allow noncompliance by a government entity is not a norm that can nor should be condoned and borders on a dereliction of duty.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

Although the chairman pointed this out and sought to disqualify the two non-complying applicants, the commissioners did not support his position.

I feel compelled to offer this critique of the commissioner makeup, as presently composed, due to my reverence for government boards and commissions, and particularly this commission. The public’s confidence and trust in Hawaiʻi’s election processes depend on the commissions’ actions and must be beyond reproach for it to be attained.

When Commissioner Ralph Cushnie, one of the two applicants who did not timely comply with the vacancy announcement requirements, refused to recuse himself from fully participating in the questioning, review and evaluation of the other applicants, he tainted this hearing. During my interview I requested Cushnie’s recusal and informed the commission, Mr. Cushnie and the virtual attending public of the appearance of impropriety by his actions.

An appearance of impropriety occurs when actions may seem questionable to an outside observer, regardless of the actual intent or outcome.

By his refusal to recuse himself and to then fully participate in the interviews of other applicants, Mr. Cushnie was able to pose as an official and at the same time compete as a rival with other applicants. He had a clear conflict of interest, to wit: a vested interest in the outcome of the selection process and the ability to influence decisions in favor of himself or against competitors.

In public appointments, maintaining not only actual integrity, but also the perception of fairness and equal treatment is essential. Almost all states are bound by an appearance of impropriety standard.

Indeed, the Hawaiʻi State Ethics Commission has often noted that while recusal might not be required by law for internal leadership votes, members may choose to leave the room during the discussion to ensure the outcome is seen as objective and beyond reproach. Many governing bodies prohibit individuals from participating in processes where they have a personal interest, to prevent actual impropriety and or its appearance.

Out of the approximate 170 boards and commissions in Hawaiʻi, arguably, the elections commission oversees the most powerful and influential functions of democracy with respect to election and voting procedures, rights, etc. of the people in Hawaiʻi — and yet the process of choosing commission members who control and oversee these fundamental rights leaves much to be desired, when it should be striving to achieve and attain a high gold standard.

Although there are several other states that balance their elections commission with members from each of the main political parties, they have a process for their evaluation, interviews, selection and confirmation to assure they get qualified people to serve the common good.

For example, in Hawaiʻi, the state has at least two such commissions. The ethics commission and the Hawaiʻi Campaign Spending Commission have a process that seeks good, qualified candidates whereby the applicants are reviewed by the judicial council at the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, who screens them, determines their qualifications and other qualities to perform services on behalf of the common good and not to serve a personal political agenda. The judicial council selects some for personal interviews and then submit their final recommendations to the governor for his choice of appointment.

Such a process for the elections commission would add a high degree of integrity and transparency, which is sorely lacking at the present time.

This is most vital especially at this time in our nation when elections are under unrelenting attacks, many of which are based on unmeritorious claims all intended to interfere with election voting rights of the people. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 41 states and 83 court cases dealing with voting rights, voting suppression issues, election challenges and other related issues.

Indeed, state lawmakers and good government advocates such as Rep. Adrian Tam stated at a recent news conference: “I feel that they’ve lost sight of their mission, and their mission is to provide secure, accessible and convenient election services to all citizens statewide, defending mail-in balloting. That is their mission. That is what they were founded to do.”

Hopefully, our lawmakers and good government advocates will see the need to review the present law governing this commission, with a priority to amend it, which is surely warranted, in my opinion.