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



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



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



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



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



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



 



 



Case Notes



 



  Although an
application 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; where
union filed the complaint with the labor relations board under §89-19, the
board had "exclusive original jurisdiction" to determine prohibited
practice complaints and the ethics commission would not have had jurisdiction
to make that determination; thus, the board had the power to apply this section
in order to decide whether a prohibited practice violation actually occurred
and it did not exceed its jurisdiction in ruling that a violation did not occur
based on the application of this section.  116 H. 73, 170 P.3d 324.



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



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



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