The EC Selection Process and Recusal
When an ethics commission and its staff are at odds, and the commission
is dealing with complaints against high-level officials, it is always
best for everyone when those officials had nothing to do with the
selection of the ethics commission's members or its staff. In other
words, you never fully appreciate an EC's independence, in terms of its
selection process, until things get ugly. Things got ugly in Georgia
this week. <br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/with-ethic-chiefs-ex…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>, the <a href="http://ethics.georgia.gov/" target="”_blank”">Georgia Government Transparency and
Campaign Finance Commission</a> (EC; formerly known as the Ethics
Commission) began an investigation of the campaign of the state's new
governor in September 2010 (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/ec-reports-legislator-who-resigned-hi…; target="”_blank”">my
blog post</a> on the same individual's resignation from Congress to get
out of the House Ethics Committee's jurisdiction). This February, the
governor reappointed the EC chair.<br>
<br>
It is the EC chair who approves subpoenas, which are used in
investigations. Twice in May, the EC chair did not respond to requests for
subpoenas made by the EC's executive secretary (effectively the executive director). Then, on June 9, the executive secretary was told by the EC
chair that the position of her deputy (and principal investigator) was
being cut and that her own salary was being cut 30%.<br>
<br>
The executive secretary, who resigned, appears to believe that she and
her deputy were forced out for the same reason the subpoenas were not
provided: to protect the governor from the investigation. Whether
she is right or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it appears to the
neutral observer that this was the case. And the fact that the EC chair
was appointed by the former governor and reappointed by the new
governor (both from the same party) certainly doesn't make the situation look any better.<br>
<br>
The EC has five members, three appointed by the governor, one appointed
by a senate committee, and one appointed by the speaker of the house.
This means that whenever a governor, senator, or representative, or a
member of their staffs, comes before the EC, one or more EC members has
an apparent conflict.<br>
<br>
The EC chair partially recognizes this. According to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/ethics-official-says-cutbacks-979232.html" target="”_blank”">a
Thursday article in the <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>, the EC chair says
that he will recuse himself from the matter involving the governor. But
this raises two questions. One, if it had been the former governor,
three members of the EC would have to recuse themselves and, therefore,
either it could not function or all the members would be forced to
participate despite the apparent conflict.<br>
<br>
Two, if the EC chair recognizes his conflict, why did he refuse to
provide subpoenas? He should have delegated his responsibility to the
vice chair, if the vice chair had no conflict. By refusing to respond
to the subpoena request, he did not recuse himself from the matter
involving the governor.<br>
<br>
It is also arguable that, considering how the personnel decision looks
to the public, that the EC chair should have recused himself from that,
as well.<br>
<br>
It's too late to handle this matter responsibly. What can be done,
however, is to change the selection process, to follow the example of
Atlanta and have EC members selected by community organizations (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/770" target="”_blank”">my blog post on this</a>).
This will ensure that EC members will be far less likely to have
apparent conflicts that undermine the public's trust in the ethics
process.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---