Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics commission warns committee that proposed Board of Regents exemptions would reduce transparency
Summary
At a contested hearing on HB1873, the Hawaii State Ethics Commission opposed changes that would make some Board of Regents financial disclosures nonpublic and exempt a strategic retreat from Sunshine Law; Board leadership argued exemptions would broaden the candidate pool. Committee adopted narrower amendments but pushed for compromise and further review.
House Bill 1873 drew sustained, often testy questioning as the Senate Committee on Education considered proposed changes to Board of Regents governance and disclosure requirements.
Robert Harris, testifying for the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, said the panel opposed specifically the bill’s provision to make some regent financial disclosures confidential. Harris argued eliminating public disclosures would “prevent the legislature, the public, or stakeholders from knowing of financial conflicts of interest” in real time and would shift oversight to after-the-fact enforcement. “Removing this information means that conflicts of interest will not be identified in real time,” he said, adding that the board controls “billions of dollars” and that disclosure aligns with national norms.
Gabe Lee, chair of the Board of Regents, urged narrow relief instead: a one-time exemption for a short strategic retreat and limited confidentiality to encourage high‑level applicants who are otherwise deterred by public disclosure requirements. Lee said some qualified candidates decline service citing disclosure concerns and that a limited retreat exemption could facilitate meaningful strategic discussion.
Committee members pressed both witnesses on trade-offs between recruitment and public trust. Senators described the Sunshine Law as central to public confidence and repeatedly questioned what kinds of “meaningful discussions” could not be held in public. Ethics staff described the current public-disclosure regime (adopted in 2013) as targeted to high-profile entities and argued that the commission’s ability to detect conflicts earlier has improved oversight.
The committee’s decision-making amended the bill to specify a limited, six-hour retreat exemption and made other clarifying edits; the committee also signaled interest in exploring hybrid approaches that preserve meaningful public disclosure while addressing candidate concerns. The committee adopted the chair’s recommendation with amendment and advanced the bill for further consideration.
The hearing highlighted a central tension: the board’s claim that some confidentiality may attract qualified candidates with complex private finances and the ethics commission’s view that public disclosures are a necessary real‑time safeguard against conflicts. The committee requested further engagement between the board, the ethics commission and legislative staff to identify narrowly tailored compromises.
Action: HB1873 (HD2) passed committee with an amendment (six-hour retreat exemption) and was advanced with the committee’s recommendation.
