Bill creating ethics complaint ‘funnel’ moves ahead

The establishment of a State Ethics Commission and code of conduct took a step forward Thursday with approval by a key Senate committee of a bill that is stronger than last year’s effort but weaker than some have sought.

The bill, S.8, approved by the Senate Government Operations Committee, establishes a five-member ethics commission with a part-time executive director who would take in and refer ethics complaints to other agencies, including the attorney general. One senator described it as “primarily a funnel.”

The commission would have no investigatory or enforcement powers. Each year, the director would report to the Legislature on the nature and outcome of the complaints received.

The bill also establishes rules to regulate conduct and require financial information from statewide officeholders and candidates, legislative candidates and high-level administrative officials. The purpose of the rules is, among other things, to avoid conflicts of interest, prevent lawmakers and state officials from profiting from their work, and stop influence-peddling through campaign contributions.

The commission would not oversee members of the Legislature, who are governed by their own ethics boards, or the judiciary, which also regulates itself. One exception is a rule that would prohibit lawmakers from being a registered lobbyist for one year after leaving office. That same lobbyist restriction would apply to administration commissioners and secretaries and their deputies for one year after they leave state employment.

This year, senators added a “pay to play” provision, prohibiting businesses with some state contracts from making certain political contributions and prohibiting contributors from seeking or holding some contracts. The bill that passed the Senate last year — but was not voted on by the House because it ran out of time — did not contain any such language. The contract would have to be worth at least $50,000 or a combined $100,000 if several are held.

The lack of a “pay to play” prohibition, plus the robustness of the commission, prompted the biggest criticisms about last year’s bill that passed the Senate.

Many senators and advocates called this year’s bill a good first step, with the idea that if the commission receives a lot of complaints then its powers and scope might be expanded.

Secretary of State Jim Condos was among those calling for a stronger commission with full investigative and enforcement authority.

Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington, a lead sponsor this year and last, said starting out with a more modest commission than he pushed for last year made sense. If a team of investigators were hired and no complaints were filed, the public would be angry about the unnecessary cost, Pollina said. Or, he added, those investigators might pursue cases unnecessarily to justify their jobs.

“It’s a good start,” Pollina said. “I don’t think we have rampant corruption in Vermont. What we need is an independent body that will actually look into the questions that people raise and help us decide what level of corruption we actually have, and I think this commission will do that.”

“I’m pretty satisfied with it,” he said. “It’s better than nothing, which is what we have now.”

Vermont is one of three states without an ethics commission.

The cost is expected to be $100,000 a year.

The bill goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee before going to the full Senate. If passed, it would require approval by the House and the governor.

Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, chair of Senate Government Operations, led her committee through days of testimony and back-and-forth changes — cordial, respectful but sometimes “testy,” White said — before the five members approved it unanimously late Thursday afternoon.

“Some people will think we went too far. Some will say we didn’t go far enough,” said White. “Many people have said it’s a good start.”

Sen. Alison Clarkson, D-Windsor, new to the Senate, highlighted the lack of power of the commission, noting it would act “just as a funnel” for complaints. White agreed: “It would primarily be a funnel.”

Clarkson applauded the bill. “This is the beginning. It’s just the start. It can always be amended and changed,” she said.

“It’s a small step toward rebuilding some trust,” said Sen. Chris Pearson, P/D-Chittenden, also a new committee member this year.

Sen. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, said the bill had committee consensus and that fellow lawmakers would have to decide if it contained enough “teeth.”

“It will be up to our colleagues upstairs (in the Senate) and in the House to act as dentists further on and either pull more out or add some,” Collamore said.

“It has gums,” said Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison.

“My grandmother could put down even a steak with her gums,” White said.

Some senators, including White and Ayer, grumbled that the push for an ethics commission was driven by the media and interest groups. Ayer said high-profile cases involving allegations of sexual abuse against former Sen. Norm McAllister, as well as fraud allegations with the EB-5 immigrant investment program, would have been beyond the scope of the State Ethics Commission.

But Pollina said polls demonstrated strong public support for an ethics commission. Unlike White and Ayer, Pollina said constituents frequently raise the issue.

In a statement, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group said it would push to make the bill stronger in the House but applauded the Senate version and the “arduous” multiyear effort by the committee.

“This bill is like a one-eyed man in the land of the blind: not perfect, but worth getting behind,” said VPIRG Executive Director Paul Burns.

The post Bill creating ethics complaint ‘funnel’ moves ahead appeared first on VTDigger.