{"id":12822,"date":"2010-02-09T21:08:30","date_gmt":"2010-02-10T04:08:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=12822"},"modified":"2010-02-10T12:26:58","modified_gmt":"2010-02-10T19:26:58","slug":"activists-worry-about-secrecy-in-ethics-commission-bills","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2010\/02\/activists-worry-about-secrecy-in-ethics-commission-bills\/","title":{"rendered":"Activists worry about secrecy in ethics commission bills"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

The Roundhouse in Santa Fe (Photo by Peter St. Cyr)<\/p><\/div>\n

With the proposal to create a state ethics commission under consideration<\/a> in the Senate Rules Committee, activists lobbying for the bill say they\u2019d like to see a better balance between confidentiality and the public\u2019s right to know than would be created by some of the bills under consideration.<\/p>\n

For example, Sen. Linda Lopez\u2019s Senate Bill 43<\/a> would require confidentiality during the process of an investigation, and violators could be subject to a criminal misdemeanor citation or a civil fine of up to $25,000.<\/p>\n

The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government<\/a> and Common Cause New Mexico<\/a> don\u2019t like that.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo the extent that it puts a gag order on someone submitting a complaint, or a third party such as a journalist\u2026 it\u2019s unconstitutional,\u201d said FOG Executive Director Sarah Welsh. \u201cIt would violate their First Amendment right.\u201d<\/p>\n

Common Cause Executive Director Steve Allen also expressed concern about the penalties in Lopez\u2019s bill.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s important to protect the accused, but we have to find the right balance,\u201d he said, adding that, at the very least, there should not be a penalty for violating the confidentiality clause in the proposed law.<\/p>\n

That would be similar to constitutional provisions governing the state\u2019s Judicial Standards Commission<\/a>, which requires confidentiality but imposes no penalties for violations.<\/p>\n

Welsh wants lawmakers to go even further in the direction of openness. She said allegations against public officials tend to become public no matter what. Because of that, it should be as important for the accused as it is to the public that the ethics commission process be open, especially if the commission finds no violation.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt doesn\u2019t really make sense for the acquittal to be private when the allegation is public,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Were Welsh to have her way, the bill that emerges from the Rules Committee would keep the complaint and investigation secret until the ethics commission holds a hearing on the matter \u2013 but the hearing would be public, as would whatever action results.<\/p>\n

Other concerns<\/h3>\n

Allen has other concerns about the proposed ethics commission bills. He said Common Cause wants to ensure that, even with the current budget crunch, the commission is fully funded. In the past the House has approved but not funded the ethics commission proposal.<\/p>\n

Common Cause also wants the commission to have independent subpoena power.<\/p>\n

In addition, at least one of the pending bills would have the state pay for the legal defense of public officials who have complaints filed against them. Allen called that \u201cfairly unusual,\u201d and noted that the state Constitution doesn\u2019t provide for the state paying the legal fees of judges who are investigated.<\/p>\n

Allen did say he\u2019s glad the legislation has progressed. He said all pending ethics commission bills are better than what passed the House<\/a> in the last session.<\/p>\n

\u201cA lot of great work has been put into these bills,\u201d Allen said. \u201c\u2026 I think it\u2019s important, though, that it be done right.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With the proposal to create a state ethics commission under consideration in the Senate Rules Committee, activists lobbying for the bill say they\u2019d like to see a better balance between confidentiality and the public\u2019s right to know than would be created by some of the bills under consideration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,1],"tags":[109,107],"class_list":["post-12822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-and-analysis","category-uncategorized","tag-ethics-reform","tag-roundhouse"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}