Hawaii scored a C+ in the State Integrity Investigation for Executive Accountability, ranking it 8th among the 50 states.

Hawaii got a 79% overall mark for Executive Accountability. Leading the pack was New Jersey, at 88 percent. Also ahead of Hawaii were Tennessee, California, New Hampshire, Washington, West Virginia and Iowa. Connecticut tied Hawaii for 8th place.

To complete the integrity investigation, Civil Beat examined 330 “Corruption Risk Indicators” across 14 categories of government. Today we report the first of our detailed findings on Executive Accountability. Click here to learn more about the methodology used for the project.)

Bottom line: A Hawaii governor has a great deal of power, but the checks on that power are such that the state looks relatively good when compared to others.

What follows is an examination of the first of five questions that were the basis for the C+ grade. It’s now your turn to evaluate whether Civil Beat got it right and to share what you think. Share your comments at the bottom of this story.

Can the chief executive be held accountable for his/her actions?

Overall score: 79%

Here are the criteria Civil Beat used to answer that question.

1. In practice, the governor gives reasons for his/her policy decisions.

Notes: Different governors have different approaches to explaining the reasons behind their policy decisions. Gov. Neil Abercrombie refused to release to the media a list of nominees for the Hawaii Supreme Court, according to Honolulu Civil Beat. He gave his reason as frustrating government function, which is exempt under the state’s open records law. But by contrast, his predecessor had no such issues. Former Gov. Linda Lingle released the judicial names before making her top picks, while Abercrombie hid from the media his finalist First Circuit Court picks, according to Honolulu Civil Beat. Since the governor refused to disclose the judicial names, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser filed a lawsuit seeking the names. In another instance, Abercrombie asked Dr. Neal Palafox to withdraw his state Department of Health director nomination, but did not give reasons despite an attempt by a lawmaker to seek answers, according to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. KITV4 reported that the governor refused to explain why Palafox resigned.

Sources:

• Honolulu Civil Beat, Michael Levine, 1/25/11, “Fighting for Hawaii High Court Short List

• Honolulu Civil Beat, staff, 8/16/11, “Off The Beat: Another Judge Selected Without Public Input”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, staff, 9/13/11, “State argues law backs nondisclosure of judge candidates”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Derrick DePledge, 2/24/11, “Answers sought on Palafox issue”

• KITV4, Keoki Kerr, 1/26/11, “Governor’s Health Department Nominee Resigns”

Reviewer notes: Hawaii has a structure of a very strong governor, compared to many other states. The constitutional setup that allows the governor to withhold legislative appropriations and “release” them at his or her convenience, coupled with open records laws that leave large gaps for work product and the nebulous “frustrating government function,” allows the governor to operate with little to no public knowledge.

Score: 50%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: The governor and/or the cabinet give formal explanations of all policy matters. The governor regularly takes critical questions from journalists or an opposition party, usually at least once a month. There is no censoring of such sessions.
Fair: The governor and/or cabinet give explanations of policy, but not always in a timely or complete way. The governor occasionally takes critical questions from journalists or an opposition party, but not in a regular or formalized process.
Very Weak: The governor and/or cabinet do not give substantial justifications for policy. Public appearances by the governor offer no exposure to critical questions.

2. In law, the governor and/or state cabinet-level officials are prohibited from using state funds for personal purposes.

Notes: The state law specifies that public funds are prohibited from private use. However, the state Legislature has the discretion to define what a “public purpose” is.

Sources: Hawaii State Constitution, Article VII Taxation and Finance, Section 4, Appropriations for private purposes prohibited. Visit http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/05-Const/CONST_0007-0004.htm for details.

Also see related state law at Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 84 Standards of Conduct, Part II. Code of Ethics, §84-13 Fair treatment. Visit http://capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol02_Ch0046-0115/HRS0084/HRS_0084-0013.htm for details.

Score: 100%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Yes: A YES score is earned if there are regulations that explicitly prohibit the use of state funds for personal purposes.
No: A NO score is earned if no such regulation exists.

3. In practice, the regulations preventing the governor and/or state cabinet-level officials from using state funds for personal purposes are effective.

Notes: Jean Aoki retired from the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, said she doesn’t recall the governor or state cabinet-level officials getting in trouble for using state funds for personal uses. State Sen. Les Ihara said that it is clearly unethical to use state funds for personal purposes. Ihara said the regulations are effective as far as he knows, but that his knowledge is largely based on what the news media reports. Political blogger Ian Lind said it would be relatively hard for public officials who are visible to the public to spend state funds and not be discovered. There are mostly examples of public officials misusing state resources, not funds, he said. According to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the former state director of the United Public Workers was convicted in 2003 of embezzlement and money laundering.

Sources:

• Jean Aoki, retiring off-board liaison for Elections, Legislature, League of Women Voters of Hawaii, 9/20/11, telephone interview.

• Les Ihara, state Senator, 9/21/11, interview at Honolulu Civil Beat office.

• Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Rick Daysog, 1/19/03, “Former director of UPW accused of sex harassment”

• Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Rick Daysog, 12/04/02, “Rodrigues’ acts prompt warning”
less

Score: 75%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: The regulations preventing the governor and/or state cabinet-level officials from using state funds for personal purposes are regularly enforced.
Fair: The regulations preventing the governor and/or state cabinet-level officials from using state funds for personal purposes are generally applied though exceptions exist. Some officials are known to use state funds for private purposes.
Very Weak: Regulations preventing the governor and/or state cabinet-level officials from using campaign contributions for personal purposes are routinely ignored. Executive officials are known to use campaign contributions for private purposes frequently.

4. In law, the judiciary can review the actions of the executive.

Notes: Judges may review the governor’s actions in the context of cases that are brought before them by others, according to Mark Santoki, spokesman for the Hawaii State Judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177, established judicial review in the U.S., according to Santoki.

Sources: See U.S. Supreme Court case MARBURY v. MADISON. Visit http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/5/137.html for details.

Score: 100%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Yes: A YES score is earned if there is a formal process by which the judiciary can pass judgments on the legality or constitutionality of actions taken by the executive.
No: A NO score is earned if no such mechanism exists. A NO score is earned if judicial review is vaguely established in law or regulation without formal procedures. A NO score is also earned if general exemptions exist with respect to executive actions that are reviewable (a national security exemption, for example).

5. In practice, when necessary, the judiciary reviews the actions of the executive.

Notes: The Honolulu Star-Advertiser filed a lawsuit in 2011 against the governor for refusing to reveal names of judicial candidates. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Gov. Neil Abercrombie previously said he would not reveal the names unless a court orders him to do so.

Sources:

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Ken Kobayashi, 8/23/11, “Star-Advertiser sues governor over disclosure of names of judicial candidates”

• Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Ken Kobayashi, 2/24/11, “Governor must reveal candidate list

Score: 100%

Scoring criteria: These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: When constitutional or legal questions or possible violations are raised, the judiciary is aggressive in reviewing executive actions and can void illegal or unconstitutional actions. The judiciary is fair and nonpartisan in its application of this power. It does not need to rely upon the executive to initiate a constitutional or legal review.
Fair: The judiciary will review executive actions, but is limited in its effectiveness. The judiciary may be slow to act, unwilling to take on politically sensitive issues, or occasionally unable to enforce its judgments.
Very Weak: The judiciary does not effectively review executive policy. The judiciary may make judgments but not enforce them, or may fail to pass judgments on executive abuses. The judiciary may be partisan in its application of power. It must rely on instructions from the executive in order to initiate a legal or constitutional review.

6. In practice, the governor limits the use of executive orders to establishing new regulations, policies, or government practices.

Notes: Gov. Neil Abercrombie issued more than 40 executive orders since taking office in December 2010, according to the governor’s office website. For instance, Gov. Abercrombie issued an order in April 2011 to set aside land for Kapolei High School, according to the governor’s office website. Gov. Abercrombie in July 2011 ordered a plan to establish a 24-member council to address the homelessness problem in the state, according to Pacific Business News. After the state Board of Land and Natural Resources approved, former Gov. Linda Lingle ordered transferring state land to the county in Hilo for a new fire station, according to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. In another instance, Gov. Lingle ordered state departments to make payments to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, according to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. It was part of an agreement between OHA and the state, but some of the payments require legislative approval, according to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Sources:

• Governor of the State of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie, “Executive Orders — Office of the Governor,”

• Honolulu Star-Bulletin, staff, 10/13/04, Newswatch: “Gov OKs land transfer for Big Isle fire station”

• Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Pat Omandam, 2/13/03, “Lingle orders payment of ceded-land revenue

• Pacific Business News, staff, 7/26/11, “Hawaii Interagency Council on Homelessness created”

Score: 50%

Scoring criteria:
These are the scoring criteria for this question.
Very Strong: The governor utilizes executive orders only when there is no constitutional or legal requirement for official legislative action or approval. Executive orders are limited in number and narrow in scope.
Fair: The governor sometimes relies on executive orders to implement policies and regulations opposed by the legislature. Some executive orders are overly broad in scope and are designed to circumvent constitutional or legal requirements for legislative action or approval.
Very Weak: The governor routinely abuses executive orders to render the legislature practically useless. Executive orders are the norm, not the exception, and directly contravene constitutional or legal requirements for legislative action or approval.