So usually I start these posts with some silly, dumb, or insightful comment. I am going to start it with these simple words: this bill needs to pass, and it probably will not make it to the floor of the House.
is a very simple, strait-forward bill that will establish a State Ethics Commission. The commission would be populated with five people: one chosen by the Governor, one by the President of the Senate, one by the Senate Minority Leader, one by the Speaker of the House, and one by the House Minority Leader. None of these members can be a current office holder, head of a state run agency, or a lobbyist – in other words citizens of the State of Utah. It should also be noted that Senator Scott McCoy (D – Salt Lake City, District 2) is pushing mirror legislation in the Senate (S.B. 101).
Any elected state official could come before the commission when anyone, any citizen or fellow office holder, files a complaint. The bill sets up provisions stating what will and will not be heard, and the commission can dismiss charges at any time. Accusations can not be anonymous and the accused will face their accuser. If a complaint is found to be true, the commission will decide what action to take.
This bill will make it nowhere. The holier than thou legislature will trot out the classic rhetoric “we are too busy doing the peoples business to deal with phony complaints,” “we are not doing anything wrong, so why should we have a commission in the first place,” and “we should just report more of the gifts we recivieve (knowing full well that citizens have no idea how to access this information.” The Republican dominated Legislature will subsequently shoot down this bill. I always have to ask what these fine upstanding elected officials have to worry about if they truly are not violating any rules or ethics?
It should be noted that Riesen himself came before an ad hoc commission late last year due to trumped up ethics complaints. After being let go, he chose to push for this legislation anyway – it is almost as if he sees the value in a commission such as this for the state and actually wants to clean a system up that the vast majority of citizens feel are necessary.
It’s something I need to think about further, but wouldn’t an ethics bill requiring *any* elected official to appear before a legislative ethics committee violate the separation of powers doctrine?
(While I refer primarily to the rights of the executive, recall that our state judges stand for retention elections, and might thus be construed to qualify.)
The legislature is granted the authority to try for impeachment, that is true, but impeachment is a different beast altogether, with specific constitutional requirements (e.g. hearing by full chamber. Any other judgement against members of another branch have no substantive meaning.
At the moment, I lean toward the idea that each branch should be responsible for creating its own system of ethics complaints.
Perhaps this is an attempt to force the governor to threaten veto so the legislature can blame him, not themselves.
Tom,
I understand your concern, however this bill would not be run by the legislature, rather it will be manned with people appointed by legislative leaders and the governor. My apologies if this was not made clear in the post.
Legislative leaders, just like anyone else, can accuse other elected officials of ethics violations, however the commission could dismiss the charge immediately. In my opinion the bill is written in an attempt to remove politics and balance of power issues, not create them.
Thanks for posting!
I’m still kinda thinking out loud here … but part of what I’m wondering is this: since the commission exists outside of any member branch, what can it effectively do?
Let’s suppose they return findings of an ethical violation … Then what? In order for the committee to be useful, it would need subpoena and contempt authority (a different argument) and the ability to impose some sort of sanctions. What good is a toothless committee except in the court of public opinion? A “not guilty” verdict is “vindication” and a “guilty” verdict has no substance. … I question the end game this solution is supposed to provide.
To take that back to the separation of powers question, it *can’t* be granted authority to impose sanctions because that would violate separation of powers.
Thoughts?