MONTPELIER — The state panel tasked with reviewing alleged violations of Vermont’s ethical standards for government officials has been at odds with lawmakers over a bill that would limit the panel’s role in reviewing potential misconduct by state leaders.
The House unanimously passed the bill, H.1, on Friday. It would, among other changes, exempt the panels and boards that investigate alleged misconduct by legislators, judges and attorneys from a legal requirement to “consult” with the state ethics commission.
The proposal has faced sharp opposition from the head of the state commission, though, who called it “dangerous to ethics accountability” in an interview this week.
At issue is a portion of a sweeping set of changes to state ethics laws enacted last year. The provision — which isn’t slated to take effect until later this year — would require the House and Senate’s internal ethics panels to consult with the state ethics commission when investigating certain cases. (When the commission receives a complaint about a House or Senate member, it refers the matter to the appropriate chamber’s panel.)
Under the provision in question, the House or Senate panel would have 60 days to consult the state commission after the commission passes along a complaint.
The 2024 law also would require the state boards tasked with reviewing alleged misconduct by judges and attorneys to consult the state ethics commission in certain cases. The state commission can offer advice on how Vermont’s statewide code of ethics for public servants applies to a case, though the boards and panels are not obligated to follow it.
But lawmakers supporting H.1 have argued that this “consultation” requirement is an infringement on the separation of powers guaranteed by the Vermont Constitution.
READ MORE
They’ve pointed to language in the constitution stating House and Senate members have the power to determine the “qualifications” of their colleagues, as well as a similar provision giving the Vermont Judiciary authority over judges and lawyers.
Speaking for the House Ethics Panel, which he chairs, South Burlington Democratic Rep. Martin Lalonde said he and other lawmakers are open to hearing the state ethics commission’s advice. But LaLonde, who is also H.1’s lead sponsor, said he thinks the bill addresses a “straightforward” conflict between state law and the Constitution.
The conflict was overlooked when lawmakers enacted the ethics legislation last year, said Rep. Michael Morgan, R-Milton, when presenting H.1 on the floor Thursday. Morgan’s committee, House Government Operations and Military Affairs, took up the bill earlier this year and voted unanimously this week to send it to the House floor.
“We want the insight of the ethics (commission) — that’s fine. But if we’re mandated to consult over a certain number of days, that’s where it starts to impinge,” LaLonde said in an interview Thursday, shortly before the House granted it preliminary approval.
H.1 would essentially replace the mandatory consultation between the state commission and the other panels and boards with a measure requiring that the state commission make up front “recommendations,” including on potential courses of action, when referring a complaint to the other investigating entities.
Christina Sivret, the state ethics commission’s executive director, said that’s a lower standard than what is set to take effect later this year. She said H.1 would give legislators, judges and lawyers a carveout others don’t get, which runs counter to lawmakers’ work in recent years to create “uniform” standards for ethical conduct across government.
“Just the fact that they’re being held to a different standard than everyone else, I mean, that’s a problem,” Sivret said Thursday afternoon. “Because the question is, why? Why would you need to do that unless you’re seeking to escape ethics accountability?”
Sivret disagrees with lawmakers that the existing law violates the state constitution, she said, because the state’s code of ethics — and thus, her office’s purview — does not apply to “core” functions of the Legislature, such as voting on legislation.
Sivret has testified against the bill and, late last month, sent out a press release calling it an effort to “roll back” ethics reforms. The bill has also faced opposition from two advocacy groups in recent weeks — the League of Women Voters of Vermont and Campaign for Vermont.
“We are at a time when trust in government institutions is at an all-time low,” said Pat McDonald, Campaign for Vermont’s president, in a memo published Thursday. “The solution is more sunlight, not less.
Sivret said she doesn’t think the bill got enough scrutiny in the House, and plans to continue contesting it as it heads to the Senate for further consideration.
At the same time, House lawmakers are considering another set of changes to how ethics investigations operate — though it does not have to do with the powers of the state commission. Notably, the changes stem, at least in part, from one of the House Ethics Panel’s highest-profile probes in recent years.
LaLonde is sponsoring a measure, H.R.6, that would change some of the rules governing how the House’s internal panel operates. The panel investigated an incident last year, which made international headlines, in which Rep. Mary Morrissey, R-Bennington, repeatedly dumped water into a bag belonging to her district-mate, then-Rep. Jim Carroll, D-Bennington.
As it stands, panel members are not even allowed to acknowledge the existence of an investigation they’re conducting, LaLonde said. His proposal would allow the ethics panel to issue “a brief statement” if the fact it is reviewing a case, or the case itself, “is generally known to the public, through independent sources, and the subject matter of the complaint is of broad public interest or speculation,” the measure states.
“Last year, with the water, it was very publicly known — but we couldn’t say anything,” LaLonde said, adding that he hopes the change would improve transparency and bolster people’s trust in the ethics panel’s process.
The rule changes would also require the panel to issue a public report after closing out each investigation that includes a summary of any allegations and how and why the case was disposed of in a given way. Notably, though, the report would not include any information identifying the parties in a case.
LaLonde’s proposal was referred to the House Rules Committee for consideration late last month, and LaLonde said he expects the committee to take the measure up in the coming weeks.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermont House passes change to ethics law, despite objections from the state’s ethics commission.