Another cloud hangs over the State Capitol. Recent reporting suggests that an unnamed legislator may have accepted $35,000 in campaign contributions during the same federal probe that sent two former lawmakers to prison. Years later, the public still has no answers — and that uncertainty continues to erode trust in our institutions.

Last week the House speaker sent letters to the U.S. attorney and the state attorney general asking whether the federal investigation remains active and whether a state inquiry might proceed without interference. That was the right first step. But based on long-standing practice, if the attorney general decides to review this matter for possible violations of state law, the Legislature — and the public — will not be informed of any progress until prosecutors decide whether to indict. In the meantime, the perception will linger that nothing is being done.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat is focusing on transparency, accountability and ethics in government and other institutions. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

That perception is damaging. People are frustrated and rightfully expect action. Yet the Legislature’s current framework offers no credible way to investigate its own members without raising concerns about fairness or political motivation. We can form special committees, but even the most careful internal process will inevitably be seen through a partisan or self-protective lens. The public has little reason to believe a body can objectively investigate itself.

This dilemma will soon come to a head. A citizen petition calling for a legislative investigation appears to be gaining signatures and could be formally filed in the coming months. Under our rules, such a petition would allow the House to create a committee with subpoena and contempt powers to gather evidence and compel testimony.

That authority is real and meaningful, and if a petition is filed, we have a duty to take it seriously and pursue the facts. But it does not solve the underlying issue of credibility. Even if used properly, few would view an investigation led by sitting legislators into one of their own as fully impartial.

The Legislature unquestionably retains the constitutional authority to discipline, and in extreme cases to expel, one of its own for due cause. That authority exists for a reason. But any exercise of it must rest on facts gathered through a process the public perceives as credible. An internal committee of sitting lawmakers is unlikely to meet that standard, no matter how well-intentioned.

That is why I believe Hawaiʻi should consider establishing an independent entity to operate in the space between criminal prosecution and legislative discipline. Congress confronted the same challenge years ago and created the Office of Congressional Ethics, an external body that reviews allegations and refers findings to the House Ethics Committee. It has its critics, but its presence reassures the public that credible professionals — not colleagues — are doing the fact-finding. Exploring a similar model for Hawaiʻi would strengthen both accountability and public trust.

An independent investigative mechanism would not replace the Legislature’s own powers; it would legitimize them. When lawmakers ultimately vote on matters of discipline, they would do so based on evidence gathered by a neutral process rather than rumors or political pressure. Just as important, the public would have confidence that someone outside the halls of the Capitol is committed to discovering the truth. An independent process is not an escape from transparency — it is the surest path to it.

Until such a structure exists, our near-term options are limited. We can review available documents and ask reasonable questions, but those efforts alone will not produce new facts. Even a committee with subpoena power may face non-cooperative witnesses and skepticism about its motives. Without an independent review, any findings will inevitably be viewed through a political lens.

Some may argue that lawmakers should simply use the tools already at our disposal. But credibility matters as much as capability. In times like this, the appearance of self-protection can be as corrosive as the wrongdoing itself. This is not about shielding colleagues — it’s about ensuring that whatever process unfolds will actually earn the public’s trust.

If we are serious about restoring faith in our government, we must be willing to embrace accountability even when it is uncomfortable — and that means allowing an outside process to handle investigations where our own impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

More than half of today’s House members were not even serving when the events in question allegedly occurred. Many of us entered office in the years since, determined to rebuild trust in the institution and demonstrate that public service remains an honorable calling. But good intentions alone will not erase public cynicism. Earning back trust requires building systems strong enough to pursue misconduct wherever it leads, and transparent enough that the public believes the results.

The speaker’s outreach to federal and state law enforcement was an appropriate starting point. Now we must ensure that the next steps — whatever form they take — move us closer to the truth and not just to the next news cycle. The public deserves answers, and it also deserves a process worthy of its confidence. That is how we begin to restore trust in this institution we are all privileged to serve.