§84-13  Fair treatment.  No legislatoror employee shall use or attempt to use the legislator's or employee's officialposition to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages,contracts, or treatment, for oneself or others; including but not limited tothe following:

(1)  Seeking other employment or contract for servicesfor oneself by the use or attempted use of the legislator's or employee'soffice or position.

(2)  Accepting, receiving, or soliciting compensationor other consideration for the performance of the legislator's or employee'sofficial duties or responsibilities except as provided by law.

(3)  Using state time, equipment or other facilitiesfor private business purposes.

(4)  Soliciting, selling, or otherwise engaging in a substantialfinancial transaction with a subordinate or a person or business whom thelegislator or employee inspects or supervises in the legislator's or employee'sofficial capacity.

Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit alegislator from introducing bills and resolutions, serving on committees orfrom making statements or taking action in the exercise of the legislator'slegislative functions.  Every legislator shall file a full and complete publicdisclosure of the nature and extent of the interest or transaction which thelegislator believes may be affected by legislative action. [L 1972, c 163, ptof §1; gen ch 1985]

 

 

Case Notes

 

  Although anapplication of this section was necessary to decide the union's complaint under§89-13, it could not be said that the question arose under chapter 84; whereunion filed the complaint with the labor relations board under §89-19, theboard had "exclusive original jurisdiction" to determine prohibitedpractice complaints and the ethics commission would not have had jurisdictionto make that determination; thus, the board had the power to apply this sectionin order to decide whether a prohibited practice violation actually occurredand it did not exceed its jurisdiction in ruling that a violation did not occurbased on the application of this section.  116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324.

  As this sectionprohibited the posting of campaign materials on a union bulletin board on thefourth floor of a state building, and nothing in chapter 89 was explicitlycontrary to, or inconsistent with, that construction, there was no conflictbetween §89-3 and this section.  116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324.

  Where the posting ofcampaign materials on a union bulletin board on the fourth floor of a statebuilding was prohibited by this section, and was thus not lawful, the postingswere not protected under the express language of §89-3 (2006). 116 H. 73, 170P.3d 324.

  Where the State, asemployer, expressed a "legitimate" concern with campaign materialspostings on the union bulletin board on the fourth floor of the department oftransportation building, inasmuch as the supervisors at the department believedthem to be in violation of this section and an ethics commission bulletinentitled "Campaign Restrictions for State Officials and StateEmployees", and there was no Hawaii labor relations board finding of"union animus", the removal of campaign materials from the unionbulletin board did not infringe on the "mutual aid or protection"clause of §89-3 (2006).  116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324.