SmartTranscript of House Ethics Panel training: 2025-01-23-3:15 p.m.

[Speaker 0 ]: Alright. Good afternoon, everyone. This is the caucus of the whole of the Vermont House of Representatives, to receive a training today from our house ethics panel on our ethics policy. And with that, I'll turn it over to the chair of the house ethics panel, representative Malone. [Martin Malone ]: Thank you. Good afternoon. So Martin Malone, chair of the house judiciary committee. I have the privilege of chairing the house ethics panel for a second biennium. My statements are very short. I'm just here to introduce the rest of the panel so folks know who to go to if you have questions. If you have questions on ethics, you can certainly come to me. You can come to Betsy Anne or Mike or any of the other panel members. And I'm just gonna call their names, and if you could stand up and wave so people know who is on the panel. It's representative Brian China, representative Michael Morgan, representative Carol Odey, representative Chris Taylor. So I hope that the whole panel does not see any of you the next two years. Although, like I say, if you need some advice, come to any of us. And I'll turn it over to Betsy and and Mike, the brain trust behind the panel. Thank you. [Mike O'Grady ]: Well, my name is Mike O'Grady. I'm, deputy chief counsel for legislative counsel. Betsy Anne and I have been staffing the ethics commission, I I think, since its beginning. It's about ten, twelve years now. And, we're going to give you an overview about the ethical requirements for you as members of the House of Representatives. The first thing we're going to do is we're going to talk to you about the Vermont Constitution's principles of representative government, voting conflicts and duties, disclosures and interactions with lobbying entities with which are statutory or regulatory requirements, regulation of the chamber integrity, generally the panel and its procedure, and the state ethics commission, and the state code of ethics. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Thank you, Michael. Betsy Ann Ras, Clerk of the House. And so we're gonna get started with, of course, the Vermont constitution. Because when we're talking about you and your role as constitutional legislative offers officers, you gotta take it from the top with the Vermont constitution because the constitution always controls all power of our government flows from this beautiful document, and it document, and it provides principles for how our government must operate. It's your guide for how you conduct yourselves as representatives of people of Vermont. But before we start, we just wanna summarize your roles as representatives and the panel's role on behalf of the house. The purpose of the general assembly as a lawmaking branch, which is your branch, is to pass laws that conform to constitutional requirements. And in your discretion, judge what you think is best for the common benefit of Vermonters, which we'll get into. So we'll discuss ethics and legislating. When we talk about ethics and legislating, a lot of people will immediately think of conflicts of interest, and we will review with you your ethics rule, your conflicts rule, the same rule as the senate has for conflicts of interest, but we wanna emphasize that the nature of legislating on our state level rarely gives rise to the types of conflicts that you might have experienced in your local select boards, for example, because the house is rarely gonna be voting on questions that directly impact you specifically. For example, you're not going to be voting on whether to provide a snow plowing contract to your brother or whether to issue a liquor license to your partner's restaurant. Instead, the questions that you're voting on in here in the House and in your committees are normally ones of general applicability that apply to all Vermonters. And that's the nature of constitutional legislative governance in the house the ideal population of a single member house district is four thousand two hundred and eighty seven Vermonters Need double that for a two member district. And the senate with just thirty senators, they're representing over twenty one thousand Vermonters for a single member district in the senate. And so we'll discuss with you that unless you meet one of the infrequent instances in which you have a conflict in voting and they are very rare, that's why you have a duty to vote. Because when you don't vote and represent your constituents here, you are depriving them of their voice in our representative government. [Mike O'Grady ]: But [Betsy Ann Ras ]: as they say, with great power comes great responsibility. As representatives, you're held to a higher standard of conduct than the average person. The oath of office you took on the first day of session is not empty words. You have sworn that you are gonna conduct yourself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people according to the best of your judgment and ability. So we're gonna discuss how it's up to you constitutionally here in the house as a chamber to ensure that all of you are acting ethically in a manner that promotes the integrity of the chamber. Because of Vermonters start to lose faith in our legislative branch and the house's integrity, ultimately, they can lose faith in our government overall. So the purpose of the panel is to ensure that members are acting in a manner that maintains chamber integrity, and that applies to your behavior not only in within the walls of the state house, but outside of it too. So we'll review with you some examples of legislative discipline that's been imposed here and elsewhere that has been based on a legislator's behavior that was not necessarily related to their legislative role. And the last thing we wanna emphasize for you that the chair already did is that the panel was here as a resource for you. If you have any questions about your ethics along the way, our panel members are awesome. They're always here for you, and you should feel free to reach out them at any time. So with that said, we're gonna turn to how our constitution structured our legislative branch, and we'll get into some more finer points of legislating. [Mike O'Grady ]: So one of the key constitutional principles clauses in the Vermont constitution that, really dictates how government is operated and administered in the state, and is also kind of an overarching guide for you in your ethical behavior is the common benefits clause. It says that government, you, your government, is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit protection and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emulument, which means benefit or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons. You are here, the government, not to serve yourselves, but to serve the community, the State as a whole. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Related to that is in the other under the next provision of the constitutional cover, chapter two, section twelve, which is a prohibition on legislators receiving fees for advocating bills. This section says that no member of the general assembly shall directly or indirectly reward to bring forward or advocate business to be transacted here in the legislature. And it goes on to say or advocate any cause as counsel in either house of legislation except unemployed in behalf of state. So this really is having two provisions here. The first one, no member of the General Assembly shall receive a reward for transacting business. That's basically a prohibition on bribery. Makes sense. That second clause, no member of the General Assembly shall advocate any clause as counsel. When we first started reviewing this, we thought, what does that mean? If you're an attorney, you you can't be wearing your attorney hat when you're in here. But that's when we realized up until the the mid nineteen seventies, all the way up until about nineteen seventy five, legislative council was the term that they use for lobbyists. So now that makes sense. You can't advocate any cause as a lobbyist here getting paid by a private entity to advocate business. That makes sense because then you wouldn't be advocating on behalf of the general interest. You'd be have advocating on behalf of a private interest in conflict with the common benefit clause that Michael just reviewed with you. And we'll just note here, although that second half of this provision has not been adjudicated by the Vermont Supreme Court to our knowledge, we do think that this this provision of the constitution acknowledges that legislators can be employed in other parts of the state, and they have and our constitution recognizes that, and it makes sense because if you're working on behalf of the state, you're still working on behalf of a general public interest. [Mike O'Grady ]: So Betsy Anne referenced this earlier. You all take an oath of office when you are sworn in, and they are not empty words. These are words that guide how you should act ethically within the role of legislator, and the first thing you think yet that you do is you swear or affirm that as a member of this assembly, you will not propose or assent to anything which will appear injurious to the people. You're not going to consent to anything that's going to abridge their rights and privileges under the constitution, and you're going to conduct yourself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people according to the best of your judgment and ability. And you will do this in a way that's not injurious to the people ability. And you will do this in a way that's not injurious to the constitution or government itself, and you're not going to hold an office of profit or trust under the authority of congress, and you're going to support the constitution of the United States. Now that there's a phrase in here that we need to provide some clarity on. What is the office of profit or trust under authority of congress? That's if you are employed by the federal government in a role other than serving in the military, and that's from it's pretty ancient doctrine. Its original purpose was to prevent divided loyalty between state and federal government, but the court still construe this provision strictly. So, if you are looking to find yourself in a federal job, you might wanna come consult with us before you take the job. We might advise you that you might have to resign from the General Assembly. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Now we'll take you into another provision of Vermont Constitution, chapter two, section fourteen, and this is the provision of the Vermont constitution. The senate has a similar one that provides that the representatives to you shall have the power to judge of the elections and qualifications of their own members, and they may expel members, but not for causes known to their constituents before their election. So we, thankfully, have interpretation from Vermont Supreme Court on what that provision means in regard to the house's power to judge the qualifications of their own members. In the two thousand one case, Brady v Dean, this was in regard to a members of the public who challenged a vote that happened here in the house because house members back in two thousand, two thousand one had participated in a betting pool on the results of a vote that was going to happen. And so members of the public challenged that under multiple visions of statute of the constitution. And the court said, this is not for us to decide. We cannot decide whether a member should have voted on a question because this provision of Vermont constitution has provided the house with the exclusive authority to judge member qualifications, and that at least includes the ability of the house to judge whether a member has a conflict in voting. So this was really important case law for us moving forward to know that this reiterates that you as a chamber have the authority and the power and the responsibility to judge the conduct of your own members. That includes whether you have a conflict in voting and shouldn't vote, but it also includes more broadly the qualifications and whether members are adhering to the ethical standards of conduct for you here in the chamber. And then we also have the expulsion power, which thankfully has not had to be used anytime recently, not in this century, the one before. So when it comes to judging member qualifications, there are two types of legislator conduct that we might, the panel might consider. There's the first is core legislative functions. And so in the we had Brady v Dean, and then we also have, thankfully, another case from New Nevada, Commission on Ethics v Hardy, which used our Brady v Dean case to interpret this language that helps us understand that when it comes to core legislative functions, that means voting. It means debate. It even means disclosing conflicts, disclosures, because that relates to whether you have a conflict. All of those things are core legislative functions that are conflict cannot be delegated to another entity. But then that court went on to say, when it comes to things like noncore legislative functions, those those things can be delegated to another entity outside of the chamber, such as a state ethics commission. And so when it comes to noncore legislative functions, such as things like a legislator in that entering into governmental contracts or receiving honorariums or gifts more generally, which you have enacted in a law for regulation by the State Ethics Commission will get to later, Those are things that can be delegated to an outside entity. [Mike O'Grady ]: So now we're going to talk about the standards for conflict of interest, standards for disclosure, and standards for interaction with lobbying entities. Now, the overall rule for conflict of interest is in rule seventy five, House rule seventy five. It has been in the House rules in effectively the same text since, eighteen fifty nine. And it says that members shall not be permitted to vote upon any question in which they are immediately or directly interested. But what does that mean? It's not very detailed or specific. So we have to go and look for resources that assist the state in interpreting that phrase. And one of the major resources that you have and that you should learn about is Mason's manual of legislative procedure. It is a book of parliamentary law that has been incorporated by reference into the house rules. So, where the house rule doesn't specifically address an issue or question or how you conduct yourself in committee or elsewhere, Mason's manual legislative procedure likely addresses that question, and when it doesn't address that question, we look to another resource. It's called Cushing's legislative assemblies. It has not been incorporated into the house rules, but it is still instructive to how we might answer a question that you have regarding parliamentary procedure or ethical behavior. So what does it mean to be have that that direct personal or pre or that any question in which they are immediately or directly interested? Well, Mason's says in in five twenty two dash one that the right of members to represent their constituency of such major importance that members should be barred from voting on proposals of direct personal interest only in clear cases and when the proposal is particularly personal. But what does particularly personal mean? It means that is it is in regard to a legislator personally, and it's a question that's not of direct personal interest unless it relates to you as an individual. And, similarly, an interest is pecuniary for you when it involves something that is not a matter of general interest and it is specific to you. So what does how do we further look at that? So an interesting question. It's an interest must be a direct pecuniary interest belonging to a separate description of the individuals and not such as also belonging to all citizens rising out of any measure of state policy. Think about that. A lot of you are here today because you had issues with the property tax and how education finance is being implemented. Well, you are here probably because you own property too. So if you own property, you have a direct interest in the education finance law because you're paying property taxes, but that doesn't disqualify you from voting because your constituency also owns property, and you're here to represent them. That's why you're here. You're here to advocate for your constituents, and just because you have an issue or an interest that's similar to theirs doesn't mean you get to disqualify yourself from a vote. So interest arising out of public measures such as tax bills, colonial regulations, domestic trades, and the like. Also, if you're an attorney, you can vote on criminal laws. If you're a teacher, you can vote on education. If you're an insurance agent, you can vote on insurance law. That's because you share those interests with a larger group of people. There are very few let me step back. You're gonna ask a lot of questions about conflict of interest, and we're gonna tell you that there are really very few conflicts of interest underneath the house rules. I've only really seen one direct pecuniary interest where there was an actual need to recuse themselves or or not vote. It was when a member was voting on a salary for judges, and her spouse's salary was in one band. So she was effectively voting on her spouse's salary, her household income. That was a direct pecuniary interest, and she should have not voted on that, and she rightfully recused herself. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: But otherwise this is the nature as Michael was describing the nature of representative government here. Our rules, masons, cushions all describe this, especially as a citizen legislature. Members of the General Assembly are gonna face questions, face votes in here. They're gonna impact yourselves individually as well as their legislative district. So Cushing says, as members of the house are also members of the body body politic and connected with their fellow citizens and all the ordinary relations of life and business, of course, you're gonna come across questions that you might be interested in yourself, but it's gonna impact people more broadly, Vermonters more broadly. So our rule seventy five has been generally interpreted so that if a vote would affect both the legislator and a larger group of people, Legislators not required to recuse themselves because the vote is not of an immediate or direct interest under the rule. But transparency is always the best practice. If you are going to vote on a question that might impact you specifically but is a matter of general public interest, we do recommend that you disclose that to your committee or to others before you take the vote because as they say sunlight is the best disinfectant. But if you do, there is a provision of Mason's that does provide that if you think that a member should recuse and they have not abstained from the vote, the time to raise a point of order questioning the right of a member to vote is after the vote has been taken, but before the result is announced. K. But, conversely, if you don't have a conflict, you have to vote because that's what you're here to do. Without an immediate or direct interest, you have to vote. It's in our rules, and it's the purpose of why you're here. The converse is we have a rule that says every member present must vote unless you're, required to recuse under that discreet circumstance. Now in the house, some members have abstained without asking to be excused from voting, but you compare that to our counterparts in the green room. They actually have to ask permission before they get excused from voting, and they're almost always told, no. You have to vote. Under the duty to vote rule, they have the same one. So we also have a provision of Mason's that if you think that a member should be voting and they want to abstain, there's actually a provision where you can raise the question about why the member is not voting. And we encourage you to seek advice from your panel members. You can come to my office if you need some advice on whether you should be voting on a question. [Mike O'Grady ]: So let's talk about some of the standards for disclosure, the information that you need to provide to this body and to the public as a serving legislator. So, as you know from your elections under seventeen BSA two thousand four hundred and fourteen, you must disclose, which is posted online, sources of personal income over five thousand dollars for yourself, your spouse, or domestic partner, entities on which you serve that are regulated by law receive state funding companies that you or your spouse or domestic partner own more than ten percent leases or contracts with the state and disclosure of the spouse or domestic partners lobbying if applicable. In addition, by the tenth day of the session, members are required to see a disclosure providing entities on which they serve that are regulated by law or receive state funding and their employer. And you should all be very proud of yourselves because all of your disclosures have been submitted and that is pretty rare at this stage in the session, so give yourself a hand. Now there's also standards for interaction with lobbying entities and what you can do, in your interaction with lobbying entities. Well what's a lobbying entity? There are a lot of people in this building every day that are advocating for a lot of things. Are they all lobbying entities? Well no, Lobbying entities is an unofficial catchphrase for registered lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyists employers. They're the persons that or entities that engage in the service of lobbyists for compensation. So people who are being paid to be here to advocate, it's not your constituencies, it's not your town clerk that's coming here, it's people that are being paid to advocate as lobbyists. So you cannot solicit gifts from lobbying entities except for campaign contributions. Well, what's a gift? We're gonna talk about this a little bit later. It's anything of value, tangible or intangible, that is bestowed for less than adequate consideration, and it includes travel expenses, meals and alcohol, speaking fees, and loans with terms more favorable than those generally made to the public in the normal course of So you can't solicit those gifts from lobbying entities except for your campaign contributions. And when you're looking for campaign contributions, you can't solicit those when you are in session until adjournment of the body, CNA DEA, which is without a date for return, a designated date for return. And you need to and lobby entities have requirements too. They need to disclose contracts of over a hundred dollars a year direct business relationships with you or your spouses or dependents, as well as any itemized gifts over fifteen dollars to legislators for their families, and they are prohibited from giving you monetary gifts other than campaign contributions, and legislators are prohibited from lobbying from for one year after leaving off. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Okay. So we just reviewed with you some of the specific requirements for legislative conduct, and what we're gonna review with you next is something that has really no definition, it's up for you to define. And that is what we're going to discuss next is the constitutional principle that it's up to you as a chamber to decide what your standards of ethical it's [Mike O'Grady ]: up to you requirements for what your ethical standards are, and Mason's reflects that. It says you have the right to regulate the conduct of your members, and that means you have to regulate to define what conduct is good or bad, and you may discipline those members for whatever conduct that you think needs discipline because it it reflects negatively on the integrity of the body. Someone committed a crime, you have that authority to define the universe of the behavior that you are going to regulate, and that is supported by case law out there, including the Supreme Court of the United States. It says congress has the interest of preserving its institutional integrity. You also have that interest in preserving the integrity of this body, and it's a fundamental right of a legislature that has an important interest in upholding its reputation and its integrity. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: This is throughout the nation. We provided just case law citations here. It says throughout our US. This case law upholds that every legislative body has the right to regulate the conduct of its members for any cause that it may deem sufficient. Courts have upheld the ability of a chamber to expel its members even when its constitution didn't even provide the expulsion authority of the chamber because it's inherent in each chamber to regulate its members and to punish them for misconduct, to protect the integrity of the legislative process. [Mike O'Grady ]: So that doesn't mean you're like scot free and you can go around violating the constitution left and right. So courts still are going to enforce the constitution and leaving constitutional rights of others. So, they will look and see if legislative discipline violates your first amendment rights or violates due process or may might violate the constitutional rights of others. But, and in addition, the constitution says that you can expel members from the body if your constituents knew about the potential cause of that expulsion before they elected you. So you can be naughty as long as your constituents knew you were naughty and elected you with that knowledge. So but, otherwise, there's no known cause of action, no case of all the places limits on the type of of legislator conduct that may be disciplined. And that's that's really based on separation of powers because you have a constitutional authority to judge the conduct and qualifications of your members. No other body, no other branch has that authority. Similarly, the judicial branch has its authority to judge its members, the bar, and you don't you don't interject yourself into that. That's a constitutional authority, so that separation of powers gives you the right to regulate the the behavior and the ethics of your members. An accused member is judged by no specifically articulated standards. The panels, house and senate, will look at your behavior and see if it reflects on the integrity of the body. It reflects on your ethics as a whole. And the right to expel extends to all cases where the offense is such as in the judgment of the senate or the house is inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: So how do you exercise this authority? Well, this was a helpful case from California that really said it's going back to that oath of office. Your oath of office is your guide for how you not only make decision making, or how you make decisions for policy and acted in bills, but also how you decide to uphold chamber integrity. And this case was helpful in saying that it's the oath of each individual member and their duty to act conscientiously under it. That is the only safeguard to their fellow members for an unjust and causeless expulsion. And courts have repeatedly said it's not up for them to decide whether it was appropriate for a member to be disciplined because it's up for the chamber to decide in order to for the chamber to set its own standards. [Mike O'Grady ]: So there are some examples of legislative discipline throughout the country. One of which is from Vermont in two twenty sixteen twenty sixteen. It's this Vermont senate suspended a senator for sexual assault related criminal charges, and so all criminal proceedings and currently pending against him have been dismissed. He wasn't convicted. He ultimately never was convicted, but his behavior and the charges against him reflected so poorly on the integrity of the body that they moved to discipline him and suspend him until those actions were completed. He did not resign, and he remained suspended throughout the remainder of the biennial. Similarly, in congress, probably representative Charles Rangel was disciplined for multiple years of behavior, failing to report income, failing to, provide disclosure forms, failing to pay taxes, making inappropriate campaign expenditures. This went on for years, like, seventeen years. He was censured, and he was ordered to repay money that that to the House Committee on Standards official conduct. So there is authority here. If you want to remain a legislator, the the panels have significant authority to request a remedy from you for your unethical behavior. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Just piggybacking on what Michael just said, it doesn't matter because we are two separate branches. We're separate from the executive branch and the judicial branch. So, for example, member conduct might be conduct that could be charged as a crime, and maybe it is charged as a crime, and maybe it's not. And maybe if it's charged as a crime, that member might be acquitted. But it doesn't matter what happens in the judicial branch, because that is up to the judicial branch to decide, and it's separately up to you as a chamber to decide whether that conduct, which could be criminal in nature, but maybe is not fully adjudicated in the judicial branch, it could still subject a member to discipline here, because whether a member is charged and convicted criminally is completely separate from what you could do here in disciplining a member, and it has two different effects. You could go to jail through conviction in the judicial branch. But here, for example, expulsion authority is not going to put you in jail, but it could be it will remove you as a member from this body and could prohibit you from holding office again. [Mike O'Grady ]: And so your behavior that is subject to discipline doesn't always have to happen in the same biennium, or maybe not even before you're a legislator. There are examples from around the country, for example, in South Dakota, where the behavior that was disciplined occurred in the preceding biennium. But it was so reflective or negatively reflective on the integrity of the body that the legislature moved to discipline that member. And the court said that that legislature, South Dakota, had the inherent authority, the power to superintend its internal management, and carry out its constitutionally mandated duties. And the court had no authority, no jurisdiction to halt that legislative disciplinary process. It was purely the legislature's authority for activity in a prior biennium. Similarly, in New York, there was a case where a person was elected to the body, but before they were sworn in, they were convicted of domestic abuse. And as soon as the the body convened, they expelled that member. He wasn't even hadn't even taken the oath of office. And that if there's the the second cert, it upheld the expulsion saying there's historical acceptance of an extremely broad standard for legislators decision about the fitness of their members, and the court was not going to interject itself into the New York legislature's decision in that case. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Alright. So, now we're going to take you through a run through of how the panel helps this chamber maintain its integrity, and we'll talk about the panel's procedure. [Mike O'Grady ]: So there's House Rule ninety b. It establishes the panel. There's five house members as the as the chair pointed out to you. The panel elects its chair and adopts its own procedures. The panel advises individual members and provides training to all members on ethical conduct including compliance with house rule seventy five conflicts of interest. The panel receives and investigates complaints of alleged ethical violations and may recommend to the house disciplinary action against the member for an ethical violation and the house rules prohibit retaliation. I'm gonna repeat that. The house rules prohibit retaliation. If you are a respondent and you're subject to a complaint, don't retaliate. It's just gonna make it worse. And the panel is required to annually report to the house the number of complaints filed, the disposition of those complaints, and the number of the number of requests for ethical advice. And then when there is a complaint, it has to be in writing. It has to identify the complaint, and it must be regard to unethical conduct committed by a member during the current biennium. The panel provides the respondent with a copy of the complaint. The respondent may file a response. A copy with the panel provides to the and a copy of which the panel provides to the complaint. I wanna note here that legislative counsel will assist of of responded, a legislator that's subject to an ethical complaint at this stage in the investigation. They will help you write your response. They will help you investigate the standards that you might want to assert at this stage. At a subsequent stage, legislative counsel has to back away. The panel determines whether there may be reasonable grounds to believe that an ethical violation occurred. If no, the complaint is closed and remains confidential. The panel sends notice to the complaint and then respondent. If yes, the panel proceeds with an investigation. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Alright. If the panel gets to that stage of an investigation, that would include interviewing witnesses, collecting documents. The panel by rule has subpoena authority, and they can also hire an investigate an investigator. Investigations are confidential, and at the out at the outcome of a investigation, the panel could decide to dismiss because there's not enough evidence, or it's so minor in nature, they do not think it's appropriate to pursue the complaint. But if the panel determines there are reasonable grounds to believe that an ethical violation occurred, and they don't close the complaint, they could issue a confidential warning. They could ask the respondent to engage in a enter a new confidential stipulation, or they could draft charges and proceed to a hearing. [Mike O'Grady ]: So if there is a hearing, the the respondent can can present their position, present evidence, and they can call witnesses. They can hire their own independent counsel. This is where alleged counsel steps away. We're not going to be in a proceeding contested case proceeding where legislative counsel is representing the panel and then legislative counsel is representing the respondent. At that point, legislative council is not representing the respondent. The chair presides and the panel might hire its own independent council, and it's closed to the public unless the respondent asks that it be open. Panel is knocked down by technical rules of evidence and may admit evidence it considers reliable. However, panel decisions cannot be based solely on hearsay, and the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard. And an ethical violate if if the panel finds an ethical violation did not occur, the panel will dismiss. Dismissal is confidential. If an violation did occur, the panel will introduce for the house's consideration the house resolution, which is public, containing the evidence presented, the panel's finding, and this recommendation for disciplinary action. This is this is an extreme part of the we have not ever gone to a hearing, and we hope to never go to a hearing. But be aware that it will be if you go to a hearing, it will be a media magnet. There will be a ton of attention and just that you are aware. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Alright. So we've mentioned confidentiality. We'll just emphasize here that in our procedure the confidentiality duty is on the panel and its staff. There is not a duty of confidentiality on the respondent or the complainant. If you are either of those people, you do not have a duty to maintain confidentiality of the complaint. Our records we do maintain as confidential. They're not subject to the public records act, and also we'll talk about State Ethics Commission in a moment. If they do refer a complaint to the panel, the panel does have a provision of its procedure that it will provide the outcome to the Commission, because the Commission has a statutory obligation to keep complaints confidential as well. So let's do a run through quickly of the State Ethics Commission and the new Earth State code of ethics. [Mike O'Grady ]: So the the commission is a seven member commission. It's any executive branch, accepts reviews, makes referrals regarding complaints of alleged violations against public servants, and you are a public servant for your non core legislative functions. They give guidance. There's a resource for you when you're seeking advice on provisions of the state code of ethics that do not relate to core legislative functions. When they get a complaint about you, they refer to the house ethics panel, similarly for the senate. If the complaint alleges the house number committed a crime, the commission also refers to complaint to the attorney general and the State's Attorney for jurisdiction. Documents in the custody of the Commission are confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying under the public records. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: So the commission was created more recently, and even more recently, the general assembly passed the law to adopt a state code of ethics. It's codified in statutory law. It applies to you as public servants as Michael just referenced. And we just wanna note that the provisions of the State code of ethics are applicable to you so long as they don't relate to your core legislative duties, which include voting debate and disclosures. So we'll just give you a high level overview of the provisions of State code of ethics. They make sense as we go through them. You will understand they contain general principles of ethical governmental conduct. The first one is to recuse from or disclose conflicts of interest or their appearance. Just noting here, though, that that does not apply to you. House rule seventy five applies to you as your roles as constitutional representatives. The second provision of the code is don't direct others to act unethically. That makes sense. Avoid the appearance of a code violation. Sure. Acting partially without preferential treatment that's what you're here to do represent your constituents. Don't use your public position for private gain. That is just a fundamental principle of being a governmental servant. Don't use public, non public, or confidential State information for private gain. Probably doesn't happen often here, but that is a provision of the code. Don't use State resources for private gain. [Mike O'Grady ]: And do not solicit or accept gifts except for a list of permissible gifts. I'm not gonna go through all the permissible gifts. Some are really intuitive, like, your inheritance. You're not banned from inheriting money as as a legislator. But one of the the most common questions we get is about the gift of free attendance by sponsoring entity to a widely attended charitable, political, or civic event in which the legislator participates in an official capacity, which may include admission and transportation. Note, it doesn't say lodging. Lodging is not a permissible gift underneath this exception. So you can attend political events, civic events, in which you're participating in your official capacity. You can accept food. You can accept admission, but you can't accept lodging. And remember, a gift is anything of valuable, tangible or intangible, bestow for less than adequate consideration. Now I just said you can't accept lodging, but you can accept attendance to training or education when it's in the interest of the legislature. You can go to NCSL. You can go to some of the other, organizational associations that provide training for legislators. You can go to even specific training. That's allowed when it's in the interest of the legislature and not for your personal gain. And then there's this this chart. Thankfully, I'm not going through the chart. It's a little like Candyland, but it is something that will help you in making your decision calculus. If you get something, somebody's offering you something of reward, something tangible or intangible, you can look at this and they'll help you inform whether or not you should take it or it'll help you inform whether or not you should ask Beths Anne or myself, or the state ethics commission, whether or not you can accept. [Betsy Ann Ras ]: Well, let's take you through the rest of the state code of ethics. It also says don't make unauthorized commitments or promises on behalf of the state. Do not seek or engage in outside or employment or activities that conflict with your legislative duties. Although, please see us if you think that might be an issue because the constitution does provide the ability of all voters to have a right to be elected into office. So please flag we're flagging that to please come see us. We have a question about that also just flagging even more for one year after leaving office. Legislators are prohibited from being lobbyists. That means private paid lobbyists, not state paid. People people who work on behalf of the state to advocate here. You have to comply with applicable state and federal law. That makes sense. Whistleblowers are protected, and there is a code of ethics training. You just accomplished it today. We really appreciate the commission, the state ethics commission for being here for us as a resource. They were not able to be here today due to their schedule, but we've also provided a quick summary of their code of ethics here, and we will be able to be here as a if you have questions for us about the code, we might be referring you to the code after we review your question. That's it. Thank you so much. Really encourage you to reach out to us if you have questions. No. We have we have one more training.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Ethics Panel training: 2025-01-23-3:15 p.m.

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: