§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, or to prevent a person from serving on a task force or from serving on a task force committee, or from making statements or taking official action as a legislator, or a task force member or a task force member's designee or representative. Every legislator, or task force member or designee or representative of a task force member shall file a full and complete public disclosure of the nature and extent of the interest or transaction which the legislator or task force member or task force member's designee or representative believes may be affected by the legislator's or task force member's official action. [L 1972, c 163, pt of §1; gen ch 1985; am L 2012, c 208, §4]
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.