Kris Van Meteren (left) interacts with Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser (right) before $7500 fine was announced
The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission adjourned without a decision in the civil fine hearing against Kris Van Meteren in January. See the Meadowlark article, First Amendment Defense Thorny Issue for Ethics Commission, for details.
Briefly, Mr. Van Meteren brought a complaint to the Ethics Commission’s attention several months ago, and then talked to the the press about his complaint.
Today, when the public hearing was re-opened, Chairwoman Sabrina Standifer explained that at the last meeting, the Commission took the exhibits, memo and motion to dismiss from Mr. Van Meteren’s attorney, Mr. Ryan Kriegshauser, under advisement. Earlier in the afternoon, Ms. Standifer re-opened the deliberations of the complaint in a secret Executive Session. After these additional secret deliberations, the Commission issued their findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case.
Commissioner Gerald Goodell made a motion that the commission should adopt the following conclusions of law:
Commissioner Gerald Goodell (left) reads conclusions of law in Van Meteren case. Chair Sabrina Standifer is at the right.
1. Kris Van Meteren’s motion to dismiss is denied.
2. The Ethics Commission finds that Van Meteren did intentionally violate Kansas statutes through his disclosures to Phil Lacerte of Kansas Liberty and Tim Carpenter of the Topeka Capital Journal about information contained in Van Meteren’s complaint to the Ethics Commission.
Mr. Goodell suggested a civil fine of $2500 for violation of the first count, and $5000 for violation of the second count.
There was no public discussion of Mr. Goodell’s motion before the vote. The motion carried unanimously, except Mr. Emert, who had not been absent during the hearing in January, left without voting.
Chairwoman Standifer said the Commission would finalize its finding of facts and conclusions of law. [See updated article.]
At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser issued a press release:
Van Meteren Response to Ethics Fine
Strangely, when asked for a comment about the decision several hours later, Mr. Van Meteren said he was prohibited by the Ethics Commission from talking about the case. Apparently, a gag order has been imposed on Van Meteren as he considers legal appeals.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a guarantee that each citizen has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In this case, Mr. Van Meteren brought a grievance to the Ethics Commission that Senator Dwayne Umbarger may have been using campaign funds to buy a carport. Somehow after Van Meteren’s complaint was filed, Sen. Umbarger amended his campaign reports with no obvious explanation for the timing of his amended returns other than Mr. Van Meteren’s complaint. Sen. Umbarger’s response was merely a coincidence?
When Van Meteren challenged the Commissions’ lack of action on his original complaint, he became the subject of an Ethics Commission investigation himself. How can a state government body silence an accuser?
This statement by Attorney Kriegshauser is chilling:
If you uncover corruption of violations of campaign finance statutes, you will be forced to choose between two difficult options.
1. Either turn the matter over to the Ethics Commission and surrender your right to ever discuss the matter publicly again and risk having the Ethics Commission bury the matter forever; or
2. Preserve your right to discuss the matter freely but forego seeing the matter investigated and justice served.
Mr. Van Meteren picked option #1 but chose to speak out about the case.
The Kansas Meadowlark has operated under option #2 for several years, by publishing online likely matters that should be investigated by the Commission, and never filing formal complaints. However, there are at least two cases that have been published by the Meadowlark, for which there is no known investigation of the likely violation by the Ethics Commission. There likely is no way to find out what happened in these cases because of the secrecy maintained by the Commission.
We need more transparency and less secrecy by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.
Related:
- First Amendment Defense Thorny Issue for Ethics Commission, Kansas Meadowlark, Jan 21, 2009.
- Fines and other actions by the Ethics Commission at their December meeting, Kansas Meadowlark, Dec 18, 2008.
- 1st Amendment Constitutional Right may become issue in Kansas Ethics Commission Hearing in January. Silence the accuser?, Kansas Meadowlark, Dec 17, 2008.
- Ethics Commission Fines Candidate $500 and PAC $2500, Kansas Meadowlark, Nov 19, 2008.
- We need more transparency in the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, Kansas Meadowlark, Oct 23, 2008.
- New ethics commissioner in Kansas. Updated political profile of Ethics Commission, Kansas Meadowlark, Aug 30, 2008.
- Did Senator Umbarger violate ethics rules buying a carport with campaign money? Umbarger clairvoyant?, Kansas Meadowlark, Aug 7, 2008.
- Enigma: Speaker of the House’s Appointment to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission Blocked for Years, Kansas Meadowlark, Feb 3, 2008.
Tags: 1st Amendment, Civil Fine, Ethics
