 |
The Kansas Meadowlark |
|
The Kansas Meadowlark |
|
Feb 3, 2008 |
|
|
|
Enigma: Why is the
"non-partisan" Ethics Commission enforcing a state law only on
the Kansas Speaker of the House? Recommendations are given to improve the transparency and accountability of the Ethics Commission. |
|
|
UPDATE
|
|
|
|
There is too much secrecy by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission,
the group responsible for promoting government transparency by Kansas
elected and appointed officials.
In this last week the Ethics Commission again failed a fairness test in applying state law KSA 25-4119a. Somehow, the Ethics Commission has interpreted this state law only to apply to the Kansas Speaker of the House. See details below. The political makeup of the current Commission hints at political partisanship, which explains why the appointment by the current and former Speaker of the House may have been procedurally blocked. Why the powerful Speaker of the House has not made his voice heard on this matter is an enigma. In addition to their treatment of the appointee of the Speaker of the House, little is known about the internal workings and investigations initiated by the Ethics Commission. The Meadowlark has published several items about groups that likely are not complying with Kansas laws about reporting political money, including:
Also, the Meadowlark has identified weaknesses and limitations in reports created by the Ethics Commission:
With the above information, and with additional information provided to the Commission, little or no action has been observed on these matters. These and other matters result in the following recommendations for change in the operation of the Ethics Commission: General Recommendations:
Specific Recommendations:
And none of the above addresses the huge problem with non-profits participating in Kansas elections and the IRS ignoring that. See: Integrity of Kansas Elections Less Important to IRS than "Privacy Rights" of Groups Abusing Non-Profit Laws, Kansas Meadowlark, Nov 16, 2007. See additional details below about why legislative reforms are needed in the operation of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. The nicely redesigned Home Page for the Ethics Commission explains their mission:
The "non-partisan" Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission promotes transparent government but often works in secret without oversight or accountability. Why do I say this? Too Much Secrecy. In Oct 2001 I received a phone call on a Sunday afternoon from someone claiming to be an investigator for the Ethics Commission. I discovered from the investigator that he had talked to my teenage son the month before, and wanted more information from me. (I had steered my son to some quick bucks in helping a candidate deliver campaign materials in 2000. At that time, I never would have guessed the Ethics Commission would later be investigating the delivery of those campaign materials, and wanting to talk to my teenage son and me about it.) I politely answered all the questions to the best of my ability, but later wondered if the caller was really from the Ethics Commission (the caller ID didn't match the name I was given), and how I could find out the outcome of the investigation. I sent an E-mail to the Ethics Commission to learn more. I was troubled by their response:
No Sixth Amendment Right to Face Accusers. The Ethics Commission should investigate complaints in secrecy -- I don't have any problem with that. But, I have quite a problem when here is no final report of the nature of the complaint, the findings and conclusions by the Ethics Commission, and any actions taken by the Ethics Commission? What about the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
The Sixth Amendment can be ignored by the Ethics Commission because they only have "civil" jurisdiction and the Sixth Amendment only applies to "criminal prosecutions"? Independent Agency. No Oversight. I recently asked Carol Williams if there were any oversight of the Governmental Ethics Commission. Her response:
Citizens may not directly address the Commission with concerns. Because of a number of improvements I thought the Commission should consider, and because of a number of items the Commission appears to have ignored, I recently asked if I could address the Commission in an "Open Forum," which can often be done at a school board or county commission meeting. While I was allowed to send a statement that all Commissioners received at their January meeting, this was not a good substitute to looking Commissioners in the eye and challenging them to make improvements and provide more transparency about what they do. I was informed that no one from the Commission would be responding to my concerns or questions. The Commission only responds to formal advisory opinion requests. How do we know the Commission is effective? How can we measure their performance? The secrecy around the Ethics Commission's actions and investigations prevents anyone from assessing whether they are taking actions that should taken, or ignoring complaints that should be ignored. There is no way to determine if the Commission is unfairly responding to complaints from one side and not the other. There is no way to determine if the Commission has unduly investigated some groups, while ignoring other groups. There is no way to determine the effectiveness of the Commission, or whether they have been fair. The Commission should promote transparency and accountability of itself, instead of their secrecy. Does the current political makeup of the commission explain why their rules block the Speakers' appointee? The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commissioners are listed online, and this has been the entry for the Speaker of the Kansas House for at least three years:
Neither the former House Speaker, Doug Mays, or the current House Speaker, Melvin Neufeld, have filled their appointment to the Ethics Commission. Why? State law, KSA 25-4119a. This law supposedly is blocking the appointment of a Republican to the Commission by the Republican Speaker of the House: "Not more than five members of the Commission shall be members of the same political party". Is is possible the "non-partisan" Commission is being partisan in the appointment of the Speakers' appointee? Is the Commission interested in fairness in the application of rules, or are they content with the political status quo because the Commission is "property stacked" now? According to Carol Williams, Ethics Commission Executive Director: "Speaker Mays' appointment has been open since January 31, 2003. Since Speaker Mays did not make an appointment, former Speaker Glascock's appointment continued to serve until summer of 2005. That seat has been vacant since." Senate President Vs. Speaker of House. In Jan. 2006, the Ethics Commission allowed the Senate President to appoint a Republican to the Commission, when earlier appointment attempts by Speaker Doug Mays had been denied because of KSA 25-4119a. From a May 2, 2006 E-mail from Carol Williams:
See Kansas Meadowlark, May 11, 2006: Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission Favors Nominee by KS Senate President over Nominee by KS Speaker of the House? Why procedurally did the Ethics Commission accept a re-appointment, or another appointment to Commission automatically, but at the same time automatically was ignoring Speaker Mays' earlier request? How is this a fair solution by the "Ethics Commission"? But, why was Speaker Doug Mays silent about this? Last week. On Jan 31, 2008, the appointment of four members of the commission expired. The Commission's web site shows three re-appointments were made effective Jan 31, 2008: Sabrina Standifer was re-appointed by Gov. Sebelius. Gerald L. Goodell was re-appointed by the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court. Elon M. Torrence was re-appointed by the Secretary of State. These new re-appointments now expire Jan 31, 2010. John T. Marshall was not re-appointed when his term expired on Jan 31,2008, but will continue serving until Attorney General Six makes a new appointment. If Attorney General Six appoints a Democrat to the Commission, then an "opening" would be available to the Speaker of the House. Why procedurally did the Ethics Commission accept re-appointments automatically, but at the same time automatically was ignoring the appointment by the Speaker of the House, which was blocked by State Law for years? How is the "Ethics Commission" being fair in this matter? But, why was Speaker Neufeld silent about this? Does the current political makeup of the Ethics Commission reflect why they are not seeking a "fair" solution and are only imposing KSA 25-4119a on the Speaker of the House? Political Makeup of Ethics Commission
Sebelius Checkmates Republicans. In a political "chess move", Democrat Kathleen Sebelius' appointment of Republican Barbara J. Barnard blocks the appointment of a Republican to the Ethics Commission by the Republican Speaker of the House. KSA 25-4119a allows the Governor to appoint two members, and they must not be of the same political party: "the two members appointed by the governor shall not be members of the same political party." This allows the Governor to appoint two, but does not require that two be appointed. Why doesn't Gov. Sebelius allow other members to have one appointment before she takes two? Political donations and actions by "Republican" members of the Ethics Commission, Tim Emert and John T. Gerald L Goodell, would likely not pass the Kansas GOP "loyalty committee". Such "loyalty" only applies to party officials involved in internal party matters, and has no effect on any appointed or elected official. However, many of the Republican Party faithful Kansas would not look favorably on donations to Sebelius or Morrison by "Republican" Ethics Commissioners Emert and Goodell. Such political chicanery by "ethics commissioners" does enhance public confidence in this body. How can some members of the Ethics Commission serve, and vote on actions on political money affairs of Kansas elected officials, if they have not filed a Statement of Substantial Interests? Statements
of Substantial Interests (SSI)
Related:
|
|
|
|
efg
|
|
K a n s a s M e a d o w l a r k @ g m a i l . c o m |
