There’s a message in the recent move by the Hawaii State Ethics Commission to fine George Szigeti, Hawaii Tourism Authority CEO, and it’s not directed only at him or even the agency he heads.

It’s a message reminding all state officials of why the state Ethics Code exists in the first place: It helps to ensure that state employees act in ways that serve the public, and not any particular private entity.

When that entity is in a position to benefit by currying favor with the state in this way, the cozy relationship becomes even more problematic.

The commission assessed a total topping $12,000 in administrative penalties against Szigeti and three other tourism officials to settle a case concerning code violations for accepting and soliciting travel upgrades for business trips. This involved travel on Japan Air Lines, a carrier with which the authority conducts a great deal of business.

Under state rules, coach class must be used for business trips. There was also the failure to disclose these gifts as the law requires.

In addition to Szigeti, the case included Randy Baldemor, HTA chief operating officer; Jadie Goo, director of marketing for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia; and David Uchiyama, former vice president of brand management for HTA.

The commission took the route of settling with the officials on the fine rather than going through a formal adjudication process. This was the right course to follow, as it sends a firm message, resolves the case and allows the commission and the officials to move on. Two of the fines are already paid; the others are being paid in installments.

There would have been little gained by prolonging the process simply to end with a formal finding of violation or an admission of guilt.

This settlement achieves neither of these ends. But what matters more here is achieving the core objective: conveying to state officials the rationale behind Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 84, Hawaii’s “Standards of Conduct.”

The HTA is anything but alone in ethical missteps. Last year, Jadine Urasaki, formerly a state Department of Transportation deputy director, settled a $13,000 fine for her actions on a dozen contracts with a consulting firm where her husband worked.

Clearly the ethics panel has its work cut out, clarifying proper standards. Along with improved training, from the executive offices on down, the clear legal reading could help deter some repeat occurrences throughout state government.

Daniel Gluck is executive director of the commission, which enforces the code. In an interview early this year with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Gluck said the commission’s approach is to “look at what’s the value of the gift, what’s the relationship between the person giving it and the person receiving it, and then what, if any, state purpose is there in accepting the gift.”

Plainly, there was no state purpose for the perk here.

Baldemor said that accepting upgrades had been HTA practice in the past. But that’s no reason to minimize the incident. HTA is accountable to the ethics code and always has been, so the commission was right to draw this line in the sand.

“This is not a trivial matter,” the commission said pointedly. “HTA has had contracts valued at over $1 million with Japan Airlines. … He (Szigeti) was provided with privileges not given to other state employees because of his important position and influence in tourism promotion for our state.”

Szigeti has since acknowledged the issue — saying the practice has stopped, with a new policy in place “strictly forbidding any courtesy travel upgrades” when conducting HTA business.

The state has a responsibility to maintain a level playing field, as much as possible, for everyone with whom it does business. It is the reason there’s a procurement law regulating how contracts are awarded.

If there’s room to cut around these laws by taking personal gifts under the table, it puts the lie to procurement fairness. This behavior must stop.