Laserfiche WebLink
Informal Adv Opinion 22 Page 3 of 4 <br /> stationery, facilities, and personnel for the carrying on of private business or political activities <br /> whether on their own or others' behalf. The best practice, one that had been increasingly <br /> adopted by officials in both the private and public sectors, was for employees and elected <br /> officials to maintain a private stock of stationery for use in personal matters. While we <br /> recognized that public officials could not completely hide their identities when they carried on <br /> their private activities, the use of the state seal and the specific identification of the individual's <br /> official public position carried with them a weight that did have influence. In addition, officials <br /> and employees were elected and appointed solely to carry out the business of the public. The <br /> use of the state seal, state stationery, and the designation of the official's actual position in <br /> government in private matters was not consistent with that purpose. The use of private <br /> stationery was a statement that the official was separating him or herself as much as possible <br /> from his public position. We believed, as we had stated in past opinions, that this symbolic <br /> gesture was significant and promoted the standing of government in the eyes of the public. <br /> We emphasized that the Commission did not question the right of an elected official or of any <br /> employee, under the ethics code, to endorse persons seeking public or private offices, <br /> references for employment, acceptance to educational institutions, or other similar <br /> purposes.1 But it was our interpretation of the ethics code that state stationery and the state <br /> seal should not be used for such purposes. We recognized that some incidental use of state <br /> equipment for private purposes was unavoidable; such use, to the extent that it was a limited <br /> use, would not constitute a violation of the ethics code. We noted, however, that questions <br /> concerning the use of such equipment should be raised with the Commission in advance. <br /> Our experience told us that there was in the community a concern that some public officials <br /> overused the resources of their offices in carrying on campaign activities and private <br /> business. While the public's perception of such practices might be an exaggeration of the <br /> reality, it was a view that, in our opinion, was reinforced by the use of state materials and <br /> personnel in non-state matters. For this reason, we were of the opinion that the letter of the <br /> law should be adhered to in this area and would so advise appropriate officials. <br /> We appreciated the candor of the legislator's presentation to the Commission. We also <br /> commended the complainant for his initiative in bringing this matter to the Commission's <br /> attention. <br /> Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 8, 1980. <br /> STATE ETHICS COMMISSION <br /> Gary B.K.T. Lee, Chairman <br /> Paul C.T. Loo, Vice Chairman <br /> Dorothy K. Ching, Commissioner <br /> Edith K. Kleinjans, Commissioner <br /> Note: Commissioner Robert N. Mitcham was absent from the meeting at which this opinion <br /> was considered. <br /> Notes <br /> 1. The state employee advised us that he accepted the findings and conclusions of this informal advisory opinion <br /> and would comply with its recommendations. <br /> http://www.hawaii.gov/ethics/opinions/IA022.HTM 4/4/2007 <br />