May
12

Kansas Ethics Commission’s Response to Van Meteren’s Request for Judicial Review

Kris Van Meteren interacts with Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser before $7500 fine was announced

Kris Van Meteren (left) interacts with Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser before $7500 fine was announced in February

Kris Van Meteren was fined $7500 by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission in February in somewhat of an unusual case.

In March Van Meteren filed a law suit in Shawnee County District Court asking for judicial review of the case.

There was secret hour-long Executive Session during the April Ethics Commission meeting, with a member of the Attorney General’s staff present.  The result of that secret session was the Answer (see below) filed with Shawnee County District Court last week to Van Meteren’s Petition for Judicial Review.

The Answer contained little new information, so the next action is likely a court hearing.  The status of the case, Kristian D Van Meteren v. The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, can be found by searching for case “09C 000432″ here.

Last year Van Meteren brought an ethics complaint against State Senator Dwayne Umbarger.  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.

This case is unusual because Van Meteren was the one to originally petition Kansas government with a grievance under Kansas Law, which is a U.S. Constitutional right. The subject of that complaint had no action taken against him, yet Van Meteren was charged with a violation of Kansas law for discussing the case with newspapers.  This quirk of Kansas law has a chilling effect on ethics complaints in Kansas.

The Meadowlark always publishes ethics stories before telling the Ethics Commission about them, and never files a complaint to avoid this problematic law.  The consequence of this approach is there is no legal recourse when the Ethics Commission fails to take an expected action, and there is no transparency or review of the actions, or lack of actions, by the Ethics Commission.  This quirky Kansas law needs to be revisited.

In February the Commission’s Conclusions of Law found Van Meteren intentionally violated Kansas confidentiality statutes about an ethics complaint he had filed when he talked to two news sources about the case, including the Topeka Capital Journal and the online Kansas Liberty.

Here is the Answer filed last week by the Ethics Commission to Van Meteren’s Petition for Judicial Review:

Ethics Commission Response to Van Meteren

There were 10 points in the Answer to the Petition.  Comments point by point are below:

  1. A proofreading correction was made to Petition Paragraph 1 that the Respondent’s full name was The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.  The Petition left off the “al” in “Governmental.”
  2. The second point was a bit self-contradictory to me since I am not an attorney:  Answer Paragraph 2 said Pettion Paragraph 2 “contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required” but then gave a response “to the extent an answer is required.”  What?  Isn’t “No answer” absolute?
  3. The Answer agreed the Petition was filed within the required 30 day period.
  4. Answer Paragraph 4 contained the same twisted logic used in Paragraph 2 above:  “no answers are required” yet “to the extent answers are required.”
  5. To someone who is not an attorney, Answer paragraph 5 is bizarre:  The Respondent, The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, said it “is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations regarding Petitioner’s address, and therefore, denies the same.”  What is all this legalese about?  Complaint 424 from the Ethics Commission gave Van Meteren’s address to be the one they are now saying they are “without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny”.  Does this now mean the original Complaint 424 is invalid since it was filed with incomplete knowledge by the Ethics Commission?
  6. There is agreement on the name and address of the Ethics Commission in Petition Paragraph 8 except the Petition was missing the “al” in “Governmental.”
  7. There is agreement in Petition Paragraph 9 that the Ethics Commission fined Van Meteren $7500 but the Commission denies his claims that his constitutional protected right to free speech may have been violated.  The Answer gives no legal argument or citations to show why someone petitioning the government as part of a grievance can be denied their right to free speech from the U.S. Constitution.
  8. There is agreement on who the parties are in the case.
  9. This Answer paragraph uses the same twisted logic as in paragraphs 2 and 4 above.  “no answers are required” yet “to the extent answers are required.”  Basically, this paragraph says Van Meteren is not entitled to Judicial Review but gives no legal argument or citation why such a review should not be permitted.
  10. There is agreement that Van Meteren is asking for for relief, but the Ethics Commission’s response gives no legal argument or citations about why Van Meteren’s rights under the U.S. Constitution can be ignored in this case.

In summary, the Answer made petty clerical errors to the Petition, provided no legal arguments or citations for the actions of the Commission permitting it to ignore Van Meteren’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, and oddly, cast doubt that the Ethics Commission knows Van Meteren’s address.  It’s unclear why any court should dismiss the Petition for Judicial Review with such a weak Answer.

In an E-mail last week, Van Meteren declined to comment on what might happen next in this case.

Related:

Tags: ,

Posted by Earl Glynn Ethics, Free Speech, Judiciary Subscribe to RSS feed

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.