Movement toward an Ethics Commission.

An effort to write legislation creating an Ethics Commission is underway. A small group of legislators from both houses, met Wednesday, Sept. 30, in an effort to begin crafting a bill that might actually pass both houses. Heath Haussamen supplies comprehensive coverage and the quotables, link.

Under debate, the size of the commission, the make-up, the appointment process, and the power the commission will wield.

There is apparent agreement on the size, 11 members; four appointed by Democratic legislative leadership, four by Republicans, and three by the governor. A compromise was struck between those who wanted one gubernatorial appointment and those who wanted as many as four. Diane Denish was represented in the discussion by Eric Vasquez, her senior policy analyst. He is reported to have lobbied for a larger number of gubernatorial appointments.

“It seems like the governor should have more stake in the game than just one member,” said Vasquez, whose boss is currently running for governor.

All of the struggle to stack the commission with "our guys" concerns me. It makes sense only if they are planning, or expect, that battles will be fought along party lines rather than according to ethical principles. In other words, the whole thing is a shame.

If the commission does not end up powerful and independent, it will serve no purpose. Citizens weary of the relentless corruption in state government will find it hard to place faith in any commission not beyond reproach, beyond the appearance of a conflict of interest, beholden to any one but the people and agreed upon ethical principles.

One of the key indicators of the trustworthiness of the commission and the process, is transparency. All else equal, the greater the transparency, the greater the trustworthiness. Any effort to unnecessarily limit transparency is real cause for doubt.

One of the bones of contention is, when will violations be made public? I would argue that more damage than good would be created if violations were made public before they are substantiated. However, at the very moment that an allegation is determined to be credible, the allegation should be made public. The right of stakeholders to know the whole (ethically redacted) truth through out the entire process is key to stakeholder confidence in the process.

It appears that a number of lawmakers are arguing that secrets be kept until after "legislative committees take "action'". Being the cynic, I read that as, keep everything secret until the good ol' boys have had the opportunity to cover as much ass as possible.

Interestingly, State Senator Linda Lopez, reportedly argued that violations of ethical codes should be made public as soon as the violation is determined by the commission.

“The public has a right to know who this person is,” Lopez said.

I regard this as a change in the position of the Senator. She has on previous occasions has been wishy-washy on ethics reform, "allowed" much needed ethics reform to die in the Senate Rules Committee she chairs ("the place ethics reform bill go to die"), and worried aloud about a commission being "too powerful", link.

According to Haussamen;

"King - The state’s top law-enforcement officer told legislators on Thursday that, while he supports giving such a commission subpoena power and some level of “enforcement authority,” he suspects that the bill that emerges may instead have the authority only to serve as an advisory committee."

In which case, all bets are off.

One of the sticking points, I predict, will be defining the word ethical. I have researched the subject fairly thoroughly, and have not found any "legal" definition at all.

I have suggested an approach to defining ethical. Concede that we will never create a comprehensive list of every possible meaning of ethical, and instead agree that any credible list of meanings would include; telling the truth.

The absence of any widely accepted "legal" definition of the word ethical, is perplexing since there is state law requiring "ethical" conduct;

A legislator, public officer or employee shall conduct himself in a manner that justifies the confidence placed in him by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service.

Currently, that law applies only to state offices and not to local entities like the APS Board of Education, which cannot be held accountable for their ethical misconduct in any recognized venue.

Transparency remains key.

“The best government is open government,”
(NM Attorney General) King said.

While there seems to be widespread agreement among
stakeholders, on that sentiment, the devil they say,
is in the details.




photo Mark Bralley